RE: IETF & this list

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

<first cuppa>

> I think it's the OPS ADs responsibility to do something about the
> 'NM problem'.

it would seem hard to explain this position in light of the
discussions on problem-statement, where i interpret non-trivial
sentiment against AD-driven architecture.

> A lot of good input has been collected from the operator
> community over the last 1+ years

i would have a hard time couching it so positively.  it struck me
as a combination of ear-wax/denial removal and rudely silencing
some of the ops who want to talk about trivia.  but this is my
first cuppa.

to be personally honest, i have had some ideas and cravings about
where we should go and how we might start to get there.  but i have
been unable to communicate them well enough to entice anybody, or
maybe they're just wrong.  

i also don't think it's a quick fix, especially one of the style
that some folk on the problem-statement list think should rule the
ietf.  to be really pessimistic, i think we lack the computer
science needed to *really* manage networks, see tim griffin and my
broadside at <http://psg.com/~randy/020301.core-studies.ps>.

otoh, i do see some intital steps.  but i seem to lack the ability
to communicate them to the ietf NM community.  i would feel really
guilty except for some personal circumstances and that no one else
seems to be able to communicate much of a vision either.

talk is cheap, send vision.

randy


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>