General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

Spencer Dawkins sdawkins at
Fri Feb 28 11:14:57 CET 2003

I agree with Keith that there probably ARE mis-characterizations 
and omissions in the draft, especially in the detailed descriptions 
(there was no admission control, right), but would suggest that we 
try to minimize the time we spend fixing mis-characterizations and 
omissions in anticipation that the Solutions team will use the Problem 
draft as a starting point, and choose the parts they can imagine 
solutions for - so there will be a filter at that point, in any case.

Actual libel and hallucination needs to be fixed, especially in our 
root cause analysis section, but I think there's a strong case for 
"good enough for publication" in this case. Matching what PS was 
supposed to be for protocols?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:23 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: problem-statement at; moore at
> Subject: Re: General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
> > My greatest concern is that we make *very* rapid progress with this
> > draft, i.e. do a revision immediately after the IETF, and then
> > decisively agree to publish it as "good enough", ready move on to
> > the solutions stage at the July IETF. Let's make this the shortest
> > lived WG any of us can remember.
> I'll respond in detail to the draft later.  But my impression is that
> this draft is just a start - it contains some serious 
> mis-characterizations
> and omissions that aren't likely to be fixed in a single 
> revision.  I'm all
> for finishing this WG quickly, but I do think we need to be 
> sure that we
> have a good understanding of the problems before we try to 
> work on solutions.
> Keith

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list