A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[Randy Bush]

>> 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.
> 
> Boy, I don't know about this.  One of midcom's deliverables (more
> than one, actually, but that's another matter) has some serious
> architectural problems that were spelled out in detail in an IAB
> document.  Our draft was modified to answer those issues, but
> it's my general sense that it was seen more as an exercise to
> complete to get the document published than it was a reflection
> of an abiding concern for architecture.  I don't think that the
> problems the IETF is running into are the result of not knowing
> what the basic architectural principles are, but rather either
> not caring or privileging short-term market considerations over
> good architecture.  It seems to me that educational efforts in
> this area need to focus on getting participants more invested in
> producing good architecture.  They need to be as passionate about
> it as they are about, say, licensing terms or ICANN.
> 
> I think the question of who are market and audience are is key,
> actually, and I do agree that coming to a common understanding
> about that can help enormously.

i.e. architecture, engineering balance, ... are not things that can
be pronounced from the mountain top (though tablets may be of help
(especially if taken twice daily:-)), but need to be generated by
and absorbed by our culture and consciousnesses (w?).  do we need
to do a better job of this?  can it be done more easily and/or more
quickly, and/or more effectively?

randy