Subject: RE: Maturing [Re: Time required to write down "wisdom" ...]

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:44:06 +0300

Brian,

> Well, I wrote that while sitting in an IPv6 Forum meeting in Madrid, which
> is a good place for realising that strategic goals are important in the
> face of pragmatic solutions. Also the current Economist has an excellent
> survey on the maturing of the IT industry - well worth reading.
> For paid subscribers, it starts at 
> http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1747329

> I think we are heading towards a period when "good enough" may in fact
> not be good enough. I would expect customers to be expecting something
> much nearer perfection within a few years. And the history of every 
> industrial technology has, I think, showed that high quality standards 
> are an unavoidable part of getting to that level.
> 
> So I think that while the frustration of a thorough standards process
> is annoying, that doesn't allow us to adopt short cuts that compromise 
> quality. We should work out how to achieve quality more quickly.

So, in reading the above set of articles, I am lead to belief that 
certain technologies are promoted before they are ready, implementations
tend to be rough & users' needs are not taken into account.

I am of a (perhaps naive) belief that there are windows of opportunities
for certain solutions.  If we miss the window, certain technologies may
not be deployed, even if superior.

I am not suggesting, as alluded to by Keith, that we allow marketers to
dictate to us what to do, but that we should have some understanding of
the implacations of our actions.

John

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 07:59:27 -0400

> not be deployed, even if superior.

I share this belief.  Though I'm not sure we know how to predict those
windows with any useful accuracy.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:51:11 +0200

> windows with any useful accuracy.

Can't disagree with either statement. And sometimes, that's in conflict
with the need for stable, high quality standards for the mature market.

   Brian

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:47:07 -0700

Hello Brian,

I guess it's obvious, but if we were late with all the
specifications, we would be also guaranteed to miss
all the windows.  Since the windows are unpredictable,
the temptation becomes irresistable to keep working
on the specification for longer, because, hey, the
window might still be open, and there might still
be a bug if we would just look harder...

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:27:20 -0400

> be a bug if we would just look harder...

actually the argument is often made that we have to complete the
specification immediately, whether it's ready or not, because
we'll miss the unpredictable 'window'. 

I suspect it's also possible for specifications to be completed too soon
- either before the real needs are understood or before the market is
ready for them.  and nobody wants to dust off a 10-year old spec
even if it is within epsilon of what is needed for the current problem.

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:31:58 -0700

Hello Keith,

Let's take as an example the recent site-local discussion.

IPv6 has some chance today, because it was published
as a Proposed Standard quite a while ago.

Imagine the chance it would have, if the site-local discussion
would have prevented publication until, say, 2003.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:18:53 -0400

> would have prevented publication until, say, 2003.

and imagine how much better IPv6's chances for success would have been
at if we had actually considered the implications of scoped addresses
before we declared IPv6 suitable for Proposed Standard.

had we held up declaring IPv6 as a proposed standard until the scoped
address problem was understood, it would have been dealt with long
before now.  as it turned out, declaring IPv6 suitable for PS status had
the effect of sweeping serious problems under the rug for several years,
and it's much harder to fix those problems now.