Re: [security-services] Proposed dates for closing discussion onwork items

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

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