Subject: RE: MINOR ISSUE: Desired level of architectural view

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:16:12 +0300

Hi Harald,

I support your text. Roadmaps are not a bad thing; one could imagine other
organizations using the IETF's roadmaps to sort out priorities, etc. for
getting work done in the IETF.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 June, 2003 09:27
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: MINOR ISSUE: Desired level of architectural view
> 
> 
> Section 2.1 of the problem-issues document says:
> 
>    o  The misty vision has restricted the associated 
> architectural view
>       to an outline top level view.  It would be desirable to have
>       roadmaps and architectural views for portions of work 
> which extend
>       beyond a single working group:  It may also be the case 
> that it is
>       no longer possible to fit the whole Internet within a single
>       architecture
> 
> MINOR ISSUE: There is not consensus that an archtiectural 
> view is desirable 
> - see introduction to "architectural principles of the Internet" (RFC 
> 1958), which emphasizes the ability to change more than the 
> grand plan.
> 
> 
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Reformulate the paragraph to focus on 
> the roadmaps 
> rather than the architectural views - the term "roadmaps" 
> indicates an 
> understanding of where we are and where we want to go, while the term 
> "architectural views" can be understood as "static" views on 
> how things 
> should hang together.
> 
> PROPOSED NEW FORMULATION:
> 
>    o  The misty vision has restricted the ability to describe global
>       technology roadmaps beyond an outline top level view [RFC1958].
>       It would be desirable to have more detailed
>       roadmaps and architectural views for portions of work 
> which extend
>       beyond a single working group, even if a single unified Internet
>       architecture is not achievable by consensus.
> 
> [Reminder - I am making these comments in order to make sure 
> we have the 
> problem issue document be the best document we can make 
> before Vienna. If 
> we manage to make it good enough, we can declare consensus on 
> the document 
> in Vienna, and stop discussing what the problem is....]
> 
>