Subject: [Ietf-not43] IRIS Requirements Analysis Reporting

From: shollenbeck at verisign.com (Hollenbeck, Scott)
Date: Wed Jun 18 10:41:31 2003

A heads-up to the WG: I'd like to provide the list with a separate mail note
for each issue that I identify as a possible IRIS requirement miss or area
needing more clarifying text.  I'll number the subject of each issue and
label it with my initials (SAH) for tracking purposes.  I'd also like to
provide a complete summary of my completed analysis in a single large note
for archival purposes.

Does this seem like a reasonable approach to document the results?  I could
just fill in the matrix with a "Yes" or "No", but that doesn't provide any
room to explain how the "yes" or "no" was determined.

-Scott-

---

From: hardie at qualcomm.com ([email-masked])
Date: Wed Jun 18 12:47:15 2003

This would be fine by me; having more data seems like
a fine thing.  I don't want to make this a requirement on
the others confirming every element of the matrix though,
since everything marked "confirmed" would make for dull
reading.  Doing it for "issues" where the matrix-confirmer
sees a need for explenation seems like a reasonable
place to draw the line.

			regards,
				Ted

At 10:41 AM -0400 6/18/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-not43 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43