At 04:12 PM 4/10/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
>they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
>solutions to those problems. but if the quick fix solutions
>get entrenched then they cause their own set of problems which
>are worse then the original problems. this is not progress.
>
>IMHO we need to see these things for what they are:
>
>- quick fixes with limited applicability and future
>- indicators that there is an important problem that needs to be
> solved in a technically sound fashion
Agreed completely ... but this still doesn't lead to your
conclusion. Suppose we had suppressed every kludge that's come up since
we started working on a new Internet design as a group? Let me see, ROAD
gave their report, where they recommended CLNP, in Santa Fe, right? That
was (let me look at the back of my shirt a second ...) in 1991. OK, OK,
I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these days it
takes us years to make any architectural enhancements. Peter Deutsch is
right: let the work go forward and *in addition* be sure you document
very well what its limitations are. Stick that documentation in the same
RFCs whenever possible.
...Scott
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
