[feedback-report] ARF working group interest?
dhc at dcrocker.net
Wed Sep 2 15:24:16 PDT 2009
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> One of the main functions of creating the working group will be to take
>> on the technical work of considering whether ARF as it is currently
>> defined is necessary and sufficient. That is, we should consider
>> dropping stuff that’s not actually useful or ambiguous, and adding what
>> appears to be missing.
> Please let me state once more that ARF is not sufficient. What appears
> to be missing are the indications of when and how to use it,
There is a difference between specifying an overall system, versus specifying a
component of a system.
ARF is component technology.
There's nothing wrong with considering the specification of a system in which
ARF is used, but it is a fundamentally different task than the one before us
To consider whether the current form of ARF is necessary and and sufficient does
require considering a larger system in which it can be used. But it does not
require specifying it.
More information about the abuse-feedback-report