On 2/6/15 11:15 AM, Carter Bullard wrote: > Hey Melinda, > If you’re point is that you have to go back to 1999 to find an IETF protocol > that > was successful, then seems that you’re in agreement with my point.
I'm not. HTTPbis doesn't have a requirements document, either, nor do a large number of other successful protocols. Arguably the IETF produced more useful, relevant documents back when requirements documents and whatnot were not the norm. I think that in general requirements documents are helpful to the process of specification and have some historical value, but at this point it's very clearly the case that the IETF process has slowed down to the point that it's gotten nearly impossible to publish documents in a timely way. It's happened at the same time that documents that used not to be part of the process - problem statements, requirements documents, gap analyses, and so on - have become part of the culture. There's nothing in any IETF process document that requires them. Allow me to repeat that: there's nothing in any IETF process document that requires them. So, to the extent that they're useful, yay, to the extent that they bog the IETF down in non-specification work, boo. Melinda _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
