Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Confused and Frustrated about the process

[Marc Perkel <marc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

I can't accept that. It's a very defeatist position. You can't solve 
problems taking that position.
Mike O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> 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 
> either... and,
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.
> Oh, by the way, this is the control module for the emergency shut-down 
> system in a nuclear reactor... and,
Shouldn't be a problem here in that the system would be limited to very 
new domains only.
> 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...
That's the difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Good 
engineering and testing would eliminate that.
> Maybe you would take a different approach to fixing it?
I would - yes.
> Nobody is saying "don't solve important problems."  We're saying 
> "let's understand the problem before we try to fix it."
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.
> 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.
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.
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,