+1 Thanks Carsten for the suggestions.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
