Re: [DNA-BOF] FW: I-DACTION:draft-park-dna-ipv6dadopt-requirement-00.txt

[Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>]

Greg,

[Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with other things.]

>>> Normally I'm not sure if hints about
>>> implementations (section 4) are placed in
>>> requirements/goals documents.
>>> The section provides a good non-specific
>>> background on the state of the art, though, so
>>> I think it is helpful.
>>
>> Could you please explain more detail ?
> 
> I think that as a problem statement,
> these initial documents need to describe
> the perceived issues which motivate our
> work.  I guess that in most situations,
> descriptions of possible implementation
> strategies aren't required for this.
> 
> In the current situation though,
> I guess it's OK to have here since the
> information provided is at a theoretical
> level rather than tied to existing proposals.
> 
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

I think it is good to have some ideas about solutions,
and I think that it is good to express them in an
abstract level in a goals document.  We did that in
the SEND WG (after some debate), and it doesn't appear
to have had any ill effects.

As I have stated before, working first on requirements
on isolation often leads to bad designs.  Giving an
impression that the process is sequential (while it
is at least partially overlapping) is just plain silly,
i.e., an attempt to defy reality.

--Pekka Nikander