More detailed comments on the Problem Statement document

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Tue Oct 7 17:42:51 CEST 2003


Charlie Perkins wrote:

> In general, the document is quite verbose.  A spell checker should
> be employed, and ways should be found to eliminate redundancy.

Yes.

> Here are some more detailed comments on the draft.
> 
> In section 2.1, I do not like the following sentence:
> 
>>    o  The misty vision has inhibited the development of roadmaps that
>>       would inform the IETF's stakeholders of our longer term
>>       intentions,
> 
> 
> In the first place, I don't think the IETF has many longer term intentions,
> except perhaps "saving the Internet".  Such intentions don't necessarily
> need "roadmaps".  I think the IETF is much more reactive than would be understood from the above sentence

I agree.

> and I think it's a good thing for
> the IETF to be that way.  This is not to say that the IETF can only solve
> problems after they occur.  I do think think that the IETF should try to
> prevent problems, as far in advance as we reasonably can.  But the
> IETF actions are happening in response to identified problems, not
> (in general!) according to some over-arching roadmap, architecture,
> plan, or vision.

Hmm... I agree that this is what appears to be happening now.
I would actually prefer to see a more "planned" approach where
we publish roadmaps for some developments that we foresee. For instance,
is there an IETF/IAB/IESG plan for dealing with "wireless"? We certainly
are doing a lot of work in this space, but I think it would be beneficial
if we developed a roadmap of things we need to do for the "wireless" in
the next 2-5 years. This would benefit both external parties, as they could
learn what we intend to do, as well as ourselves in terms of making it
clearer how we are doing, and how much more work remains.

> In section 2.2, on page six, there is the following text:
> 
>>    o  Failure to identify and articulate engineering trade-offs that may
>>       be needed to meet the deadlines that the WG has set without
>>       inappropriately reducing the 'fitness for purpose' for the
>>       intended customers.
>>
>>    o  Continued refinement of the solution beyond the point at which it
>>       is adequate to meet the requirements placed on it by the intended
>>       purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> I am concerned that listing these as bullets needing attention is
> counterproductive.  For one thing, most engineers are aware that
> these problems need to be avoided.  On the general assumption that
> most WG staff (i.e., the ones that do the work and that care) are
> engineers, there isn't much need to restate the obvious, and most
> people will not derive much useful content from these bullets -- i.e.,
> it's the negative equivalent of "motherhood and apple pie".  I don't
> remember when anyone consciously acted in the above bad ways.

Not consciously. But I do get a sense that we have a culture for
perfection -- in the requirements phase its taking too many requirements
as given, in the design phase its the continued refinement of the
specs.

--Jari



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list