On 30 Jul 2009, at 09:54, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 7/30/09 3:24 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 02:40, Scott Brim wrote:
I just wonder if they all should be solved with the same mechanism.
I suggested that we needed an architecture that supports the
broad range of issues before the RG. Eliot sought an example,
so I provided *an example*.
Now you and Eliot have both gotten bogged down in the example,
and discussion of architecture seems gone from the thread.
I raised engineering constraints that we need to consider when
designing
a system, and by no means all of them. Determining the point at which
that crosses to architecture should occur directly after we've counted
the number of angels on a pin.
No. You saw it yourself. As soon as the phrase "engineering
constraints" appears, one has left architecture behind and crossed over
into engineering.
Mind, it is very important to get the engineering right. The Internet
community keeps learning the hard way that it is also very important
to sort out the architecture BEFORE crossing over into engineering.
This is the kind of thing that jnc and some others of us have been
saying for a few years now on this list, so it is neither a new thought
nor uniquely mine.
Yours,
Ran
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
