>I guess I'm a bit disappointed by your response in which you appear
>to give credence to Tom's rather rash, "skip the requirements"
>approach to progressing Sense.
>
>Apparently neither of you got the gist of my earlier message in
>which I stated that we had to get back to basics so that people
>can understand how the current Sense architecture resulted in the
>way that it did.
What really is the question here? Should we narrow the focus
of the SENSE requirements to be focused specifically on an IPP
or similar environment or should they be broad and cover the
range from a local network to the entire Internet?
We, as the PWG, have run into this problem before. If we
narrow our scope we stand a chance of getting some done. Of
course the downside is that what we end up with probably won't
scale easily. On the other hand, if we try to do something
broad and all encompassing, chances are nothing will happen.
What do we really want to accomplish? Is a narrow, focused
set of requirements that address the IPP environment a good
start and can we discipline ourselves to not paint ourselves
into a scalability corner?
Don
**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Manager, Strategic Alliances and Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************