[resending CC'ing 6TiSCH ML]
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Watteyne <[email protected] > wrote: > +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
