architectural discussion [RE: Complex Problems]

[Pekka Savola]

I want to highlight this..

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
[...]
> one problem is that these are not simple issues.  this is not a
> simple space.  and they often do not have 'solutions', but rather
> provide guidance and clues.  and, when that guidance does not fit
> well with someone's plan or product, i guess it may indeed seem as
> if they do not want to discuss architecture.

.. definitely.

Architectural work could be done on several levels I guess.  

One major piece could be e.g. disallowing all of these NAT-traversal
mechanisms and coping with failure modes of NAT's, and offering IPv6
instead.  That might even be wise.  The only drawback (a major one,
perhaps) I could see is that this would seem like "push by
standardization" not by "push by common sense on what's the best thing to
do".

Or issues of less controversy.. but I don't see how many really useful (=
which can affect the way specs are done or not done) guidelines can be
documented which would be adhered to, as people with different values
don't buy them.

Ie, there is a vast difference between architectural work like:

 - "these are the ideals we aim towards.  if you're a newcomer, have a
look at them.  but in practise, we don't really live by them, or they're
so abstract that we don't really even undestand them", or

 - "these are the ideals and concrete architecture we want to build.  
please adhere to them, otherwise you're on your own"

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings