At 11:38 PM +0100 3/4/02, avri wrote:
>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?
Only slightly paraphrasing Werhner von Braun, "True research is what
you do when you don't know what you are doing. Applied research comes
when you don't know what you are doing, but you have some idea what
you don't know."
Or, to paraphrase Fred Brooks, "requirements are deciding that it's
useful to know the time. Architecture is defining what information
the display of a clock presents. Engineering is defining how that
display is driven."
Anecdotes aside, I think the various drafts, to various extents, mix
up requirements and architecture. My personal preference is to
concentrate on one set of requirements, with the understanding that
outside input will at some point be solicited. From those
requirements, some number of architectures will emerge.
I have no problem with a small group developing its own set of
requirements, an then going on to various architectures. I'd like,
however, that set of requirements to be hacked on by a larger
audience, even though I've been told that's "standardization" and
"the IETF's business." In other words, first cut requirements
involve constructing hypotheses (and reviewing prior art), but then
there's a process of deciding if these are the right hypotheses
before they go into large-scale architectural design. There
certainly can be a degree of overlap between requirements review and
architectural design.
>
>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 3030
>
>http://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