- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:16:16 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, dmk@bell-labs.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter: > >>A good requirements document states the problem and a set of tests that >>would verify that the problem has been solved. I think Ted Hardie made >>a start on those two items, whereas I don't think Koen's statement does >>either. > >Yes. The universal reaction I get when I ask people why they >think we're not making progress on TCN is that there isn't >agreement on the requirements. You have obviously been talking to different people than I have. Care to name some of them? Most people I have been talking to judge TCN by its ability to solve some known problems. Requirements documents don't come into it. Re-reading this thread, I see that most of us think that some sort of applicability statement would be nice, but I don't see a big call for a full-blown requirements document. >Since Ted has made a good start, I'm hoping he'll volunteer to >shepherd the requirements document through the process. Otherwise, >we'll need someone else to try to manage the document through >the consensus process. I might volunteer for such an activity once I understand what people actually want the requirements document to do. Right now, I don't even understand what you want it to do. >Larry Koen.
Received on Friday, 6 June 1997 05:18:34 UTC