Subject: RE: what are the real problems

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:11:33 -0400

At 11:57 AM 5/22/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>I don't think that "let's grow a neat thing" and "let a 1000 flowers bloom"
>are the same thing, are they?

IMO, these aren't the same thing at all...

The Postel quote that Randy sent talks about figuring out a
"consistent path through the space" vs. "filling the rest of
the space with every alternative approach".  This resonates
with me.

We shouldn't be hesitant to undertake new work in new
spaces.  In those cases, we should try, as a community,
to find a consistent path through the new space.  There
may be no single true path, but we should try to find a
consistent path that meets the requirements of practicality
and simplicity.  In some cases, this may require exploring
more than one path, and eventually choosing the one that
works.

But, we should try to avoid activity that could be considered
"filling the rest of the space".

Of course, it isn't always easy to tell these things apart,
which is why we pay the IESG the big bucks. :-)

Margaret

It's not al

---

From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:39:32 +0200

> the space with every alternative approach".  This resonates

The problem with consistency is that it depends so much on context. Whether 
step 2 is really consistent with step 1 only shows once step 3 is implemented. 
Consistency can be judged best in retrospect. If used to decide on future 
directions, consistency turns easily into a rhetoric weapon to exclude other 
valid options. It is probably a myth to assume that the development of TCP/IP 
followed principles of consistency. It just looks that way in hindsight. There is 
no inherent logic in further development of network architecture. What is 
needed as guideline is a mission that defines core values and principles, as 
outlined in the process document by Margaret.  

Jeanette