Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>Since there doesn't appear to be interest in doing the requirements
>document now, yet there still seems to be interest in our output, I
>personally think a good way forward would be to keep working on it as
>we concurrently start protocol development. It would be a living
>document, not set in stone.
>
This approach makes sense to me. Although a requirements document can
specify desired features based on our guesses (sorry, engineering
judgement) of what is achievable, we will really only know the costs of
various features when we work though the details.
-mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST