A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[James Kempf]

> > 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.
>

The experience in midcomm sounds more like a certain amount of resentment that
some architectural clue was forced into the process rather late in the game. And
understandably so, since it was probably viewed as an exception. This is
typically not done with other WGs. Perhaps if we had a way to introduce
architecture earlier, and the process was normal rather than being an exception,
it would help.

            jak