A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

James Kempf kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:43:02 -0800


Can we be more specific about the problem? Some folks think we do have an
architecture (RFC 1958).

Also, I'd like to know more about where people see this fitting into the
standardization process?

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>
To: <problem-statement@alvestrand.no>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"


> 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
> dbh@enterasys.com
> 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"
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Concerning what Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote on Fri, 13 Dec
> > 2002 16:31:20
> > +0100:
> >
> > js> x) There is a lack of a common understanding what the
> > IETF's primary
> >    goals and customers are.
> > js> ...
> > js> [But perhaps this is really too high-level to be useful...]
> >
> > In my judgment, it's at the exact level we ought to be
> > focusing on here.
> > Your comments refer to just one kind of the large-scale core
> > 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
> > steering the
> > efforts of the IETF, and the WG chairs needs to be more
> > decisive in guiding
> > their groups to focus and consensus.  On the whole, those
> > prescriptions
> > are intended to be applied proactively, as early in the
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > BobN
> >
>