IPP> REQ - Comments/issues on Feb 17 (01a) Requirements

IPP> REQ - Comments/issues on Feb 17 (01a) Requirements

IPP> REQ - Comments/issues on Feb 17 (01a) Requirements

Roger K Debry rdebry at us.ibm.com
Tue Mar 11 14:20:01 EST 1997


Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080


Gee!  I had thought that requirements were required to be met
in our specification.  My suggestion is that anything that we
don't absolutely need in V1.0 should be flagged as being in V2.0
and that we should agree on such immediately.


Also I had thought that we had agreement that anything that we
didn't need for V1.0 we would flag in the requirements documents
as not being in V1.0.  So the operator and system administrator
requirements that are in the current document should just be flagged
as not being in V1.0.


RKD>> Tom, I guess we might be able to identify those things
RKD>> which are the absolute minimum set of requirements to make an
RKD>> operable system. However, I'm concerned with indentifying
RKD>> anything beyond that since we seem to be making our
RKD>> decisions based on what we think we can complete, as opposed
RKD>> to what we think our users require.



More information about the Ipp mailing list