mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us
Tue Jan 7 11:00:30 CET 2003
> Not all of these problems are, IMO, "research" problems. Also,
> I haven't noticed (in the spaces that I have been working, at
> least) the IRTF coming out with the type of architecture/taxonomy
> that you are talking about.
> I don't care whether you call it the IETF, the IRTF or the
> IATTR (Internet Architecture and Taxonomy Task Force), but I
> _do_ think that we as a community need to determine a good
> way to organize ourselves to attack the complex technical
> problems facing the Internet, such as scalability and security.
i think the best reply i can make is to refer to the last paragraph of
the reply i sent to james kempf:
> > similarly, i think we should avoid trying to do macro-achitecture inside
> > the IETF because the skill-sets and processes are different than what
> > you need to do engineering, and the IETF doesn't select for the things
> > you need to do goood macro-level work. and i don't have a problem with
> > that because sometimes the skill-sets/processes for the two kinds of
> > work are contradictory rather than complimentary and we don't need to be
> > good at both things so long as we are good enough to understand what
> > fits and what doesn't...
in other words, i think bootstrapping complex activities will fail if
done in the existing WG structure, and i don't think we can comfortably
develop an organizational schizophrenia to allow us to accomodate both.
i don't view that as a failure of the IETF; rather, it's a strength...
so, i think we agree in that we need to develop an infrastructure to
work on "macro-architecture", but i really want to emphasize it needs to
be done outside of the IETF's existing WG structure...
More information about the Problem-statement