Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Confused and Frustrated about the process
- To: "gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx >> \"gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx\"" <gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Confused and Frustrated about the process
- From: Marc Perkel <marc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:43:46 -0700
I can't accept that. It's a very defeatist position. You can't solve
problems taking that position.
Mike O'Connor wrote:
If I do a good job on the first one we can look at the others. Nothing
wrong with fixing 250 problems if it needs done.
Sorry about the sluggish reply. I removed my Fast Flux hat and donned
my Minnesota Ultra High Speed Broadband Taskforce hat after our call
yesterday and kinda took a vacation from Fast Flux for a while.
Let me expand on the "tech" part of your note as a way to explain what
the trouble is.
Let's say somebody handed you some electronics to fix and just after
you dug into the burnt part, they started saying "oh, by the way" (not
unlike the way Dilbert's pointy-haired boss does).
Oh, by the way, there are 250 more of these things that don't work
Shouldn't be a problem here in that the system would be limited to very
new domains only.
Oh, by the way, this is the control module for the emergency shut-down
system in a nuclear reactor... and,
That's the difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Good
engineering and testing would eliminate that.
Oh, by the way, the last time we fixed one of these, it killed a bunch
of people and the guy that fixed it was thrown in jail afterward...
Maybe you would take a different approach to fixing it?
I would - yes.
You're limiting yourself to a sequential solution when that isn't the
best way to do it. I have to again object. Sometimes you have to look at
solutions as a way of understanding the problem. Or you might determine
there are no solutions in which case you can skip wasting time
understanding the problem first.
Nobody is saying "don't solve important problems." We're saying
"let's understand the problem before we try to fix it."
All I'm asking is that you not stop the solution process. I've thrown
out a lot of ideas and I'm waiting for objections that can't be handled.
Hang in there. We're going to make a heck of a contribution with this
effort. I just want to avoid the "ready, fire, aim" problem. No
sense of adventure, that's me.
I've proposed that some of the whois type data be made available through
a DNS protocol. I'm not hearing a reason not to do that.
I've suggested that we establish some kind of standard communication
method so that people like me who can detect a problem can report the
problem o those who need to know about it through automation.
These are key components that will likely be necessary in any solution
after we figure out the details of the problem.
I can write up a detailed plan of precisely how to implement such a
system. But I would like to at least have a discussion about these
concepts (DNS data, automated reporting) just to see if there's any
objections even to these general concepts,