RE: Interim requirements

[Philip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>]

OK time to switch to html folks!

I have re-edited Nigel's proposal, the purpose of the ESA requirements
analysis is to make very sharp distinctions between requirements and
architecture. Essentially anything up to the word 'because' in is by
definition not a requirement. What comes after 'because' is the requirement.

I have split Nigels proposals into two and suggested two alternative
approaches to meeting the protocol efficiency requirement.

I am also going through the S2ML and AuthXML drafts to reverse engineer
requirements from the architecture. The idea of ESA requirements analysis is
that the document that comes out the end is a nice 'waterfall' document that
proceeds from requirements, constraints, architectural specification to
arrive at implementation specification. 

In practice however everyone does the process backwards because that is how
the brain is designed to think (abstracting particulars to ideals) rather
than reason (ideals to particulars).

	Phill

S2ML Requirements analysis.url