A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[Harrington, David]

I concur. We need to have an architecture (or architectures) to guide =
our efforts, so we can make good use of the resources we have available.

dbh
---
David Harrington           =20
dbh@enterasys.com          =20
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natale, Robert C (Bob) [mailto:bnatale@lucent.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:34 AM
> To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"
>=20
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> Concerning what Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote on Fri, 13 Dec=20
> 2002 16:31:20
> +0100:
>=20
> js> x) There is a lack of a common understanding what the=20
> IETF's primary
>    goals and customers are.
> js> ...
> js> [But perhaps this is really too high-level to be useful...]
>=20
> In my judgment, it's at the exact level we ought to be=20
> focusing on here.
> Your comments refer to just one kind of the large-scale core=20
> problems I
> subsumed under the topic of lack of leadership in previous postings to
> this list:  The IAB needs to be more active in terms of architecture
> guidance, the IESG needs to be more aggressive in terms of=20
> steering the
> efforts of the IETF, and the WG chairs needs to be more=20
> decisive in guiding
> their groups to focus and consensus.  On the whole, those=20
> prescriptions
> are intended to be applied proactively, as early in the=20
> overall process
> as possible.  That means that some of the current round of suggested
> process changes (yes, I do know that this is a problem-statement list,
> but most folks are talking about fixes) may well need to be applied in
> the short-term.  But the deeper causes that have led to the need for
> this current discussion reside at that "higher-level" and will *have*
> to addressed.
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> BobN
>=20