On 10 Aug 2014, at 09:18, Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]> wrote:
> As such, it is not a traditional requirement document, as does not list > requirements as MUSTs and SHOULDs, but rather gives a clear overview of what > those requirements might be. In that sense, I would suggest to not use the > term "Requirements" in the title, but maybe "potential requirements”. Objectives? (That is a term that has turned out useful in other IETF work.) Desiderata? (A term that seems to be popular in CFRG right now, which also is trying to collect some soft form of requirements.) Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
