Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-03.txt

[Michael Kirkham <mikek@muonics.com>]

Hi all..

While I don't have a strong position regarding the number of requirements
in the requirements docs, I wonder how much of the concern expressed is
with the number of requirements per se, versus the organization of those
requirements.  The structure of the document is fairly flat in this
regard: if you go by section numbers and the table of contents, I would be
inclined to agree that it may be a bit unwieldy.  Perhaps it would be a
bit more workable if, rather than having indivudal requirements list Type
and/or From, the structure of the requirements were further organized on
these fields?  Even perhaps organizing by subsections of the working group
charter might be very helpful in considering multiple semi-related
requirements as a group.

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Jeff Case wrote:

> >I believe that this inconsistency is why we simultaneously have a very long
> >list of requirements and a number of people who feel that the requirements
> >miss the point one way or another.  I have not spoken up about specific
> >requirements because I can not tell what goal is being sought and therefore
> >which goals make sense.
>
> ok
>
> what i tried to say in a recent note is that you cannot optimize
> 47 things simultaneously ... if i recall you were a math major
> and you'll probably agree that there are very few square matrices that are
> singular (or is that nonsingular?) ... which is to say that if you
> have this many requirements, one or more are inexorably in conflict with
> one another (i.e., not orthogonal?)
>
> you said it much better than i seem to be able to
>
> best regards,
> jdc
>
>
>