[Ietf-not43] IRIS Requirements Analysis Reporting

[hardie at qualcomm.com]

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:
>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-
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-not43 mailing list
>Ietf-not43 at lists.verisignlabs.com
>https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43