isn't there a fuzzy space between research and engineering
called applied research where the intent is to try and
produce something that can, hopefully, turn into a product?
that is sort of what i have been trying to think of. and
thus my need the keep the starting place very much in mind
while projecting towards a solution.
Randy Bush wrote:
>>I respectfully disagree. Before the IETF will attack the
>>engineering side of the problem, they should and perhaps
>>must be presented with an architecture against which to
>>standardize.
>>
>
> that is a bit beyond *research*, though not completely precluded.
> this is the iRtf.
>
> if the iEtf demands an architecture on a silver platter, it should
> start mining silver and hammering on the platter. oh, and working
> on an architecture too.
>
> if the iRtf does come up with one (or three or 42) possible
> architectures, very cool. but this is *research*. there is no
> obligation of research to produce products. in research, failure
> is often as interesting a result as success, whatever failure or
> success may mean.
>
> if you pull a rabbit out of the hat, way cool. but, if not, no
> blame. rummaging around in hats is research. lapin au vin is
> engineering.
>
> randy, who does occasional actual research
>
>
>
-- Mobile: +46 73 029 8019 Office: +46 920 49 3030http://www.bethepeople.com/vaccine_rides/events_vacc_eu.htm Rider: Avri Doria Rider #: 1338
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT