[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Proposed dates for closing discussion onwork items
I would say that a "solution" doesn't have to include any specification prose at all, introductory or not, but does have to outline the general characteristics of the design to a level of detail that's sufficient to eliminate obvious design "gotchas". But if you want to provide a solution that goes all the way towards spec prose (as Scott's nameid proposal did) first time out of the gate, that's fine. In fact, as I look back on most of the proposals that have ever been sent out to the list, they have been trending towards completeness and normaitve prose! You might not want to go this far if it would take a lot of additional work, and you want to get confirmation of the general direction before you put in that work. Eve Linn, John wrote: > This may already be clear to others through others, but I'd find a > clarification useful. For purposes of this discussion, are there criteria > defining the expected depth of discussion that qualifies as a presented > solution? Is it, e.g., something that might comprise a functional > description/overview section for a later, more detailed specification, or > instead something more, less, or different? > > --jl -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]