I'd like to snippet Phil's suggestion to an abbreviated version of one
sentence, becaue I think this is right on.
On 09/19/2013 05:37 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The issue we need to focus on is how to convince our audience that our
specifications have not been compromised
To my mind, the first thing to focus on is making our specs readable, so
that it's possible to understand that they have not been compromised.
That means that complexity is our enemy.
(Or perhaps the zeroeth thing is actually finishing our specs, so that
we can worry about whether RFC XXXX is compromised rather than worrying
about whether deployed equipment has fixed the glitch that was
introduced in -24 and fixed in -27, but everyone had forgotten about by
-33...)