Complex Problems

[Brian E Carpenter]

On the IPng case, it was always clear to me that this would
be a 15 year process (ten times 18 months). We are now
about halfway. For a fundamental change, does this shock
anybody?

    Brian

"Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" wrote:
> 
> > 4.  Near-term vs. Long-term
> >
> > We have an established track record of being good at developing
> > near-term solutions to near-term problems. Our success at solving
> > large-scale/complex problems has been by creating a sequence of
> > discrete, near-term solutions. It is the aggregation of such a
> > sequence that creates the larger and longer-term effect. When we have
> > tried to tackle large problems all at once and in their entirety, we
> > have tended to take a long time -- and often thereby lose the market
> > window, as well as the attention of the workers -- to create large,
> > complicated solutions, and to have a very, very spotty adoption
> > record.
> 
>  I fail to understand your point. Lets take an ipng/ipv6, the most touted
>  long term problem. RFC 1550 is the initial solicitation draft for ipng.
>  If going by your method, how will you divide the ipng work  into numerous
>  sub-problems?  In theory, divide and conquer methods are easy. But, it will
>  be very difficult to split a complex problem at the *initial  stage*. How
>  will you split without *defining*  the  problem? If you mean splitting
>  of long-term problem *after the initial problem  defining process*, thats
>  what all WGs are doing ( atleast from what i have seen last one year.)
> 
>  Time period is not an important factor. If the WG charter is vague, it is
>  difficult to finish even a near-term problem, as we cannot reach
>  consensus. So, defining a crisp problem statement is important
>  whether it is near/long term.
>