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

Spencer Dawkins sdawkins at
Fri Feb 28 12:13:11 CET 2003

Hi, Keith,

I'm asking, not arguing - are you suggesting we make a pass through the 
problem statement to see if we've specified a solvable problem, and 
then nail the solutions team to solving the problem statement problem?

My thinking was that the solutions team would (likely) be solving a 
subset of the problems we've identified (modulo boiling the oceans and
creating world peace without hunger). I'm guessing Keith thought I was
opening the door to solutions for NEW problems that weren't identified
in the current draft (or its successors). I wasn't, for the reason
Keith mentioned.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:04 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: moore at; problem-statement at
> Subject: Re: General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:57 -0600
> "Spencer Dawkins" <sdawkins at> wrote:
> > 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.
> strongly disagree.  if we follow this path there is 
> considerable risk that
> 'solutions' will be found to things that are not problems and 
> that those
> 'solutions' will create an environment that is worse than the 
> status quo.  it
> is essential to get a comprehensive problem statement, and 
> you can't do that
> once you start arguing about solutions.
> Keith

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list