Mark Seery wrote:
[..]
The ethos of running code is all about establishing a proof that something
works.
I never said otherwise. Running code has been a useful means for reducing the
solution space from which the IETF publishes. It has never been a hard and fast
metric of good design.
*
* But that's really not the point here. The role of an _engineering_ taskforce
* is to act like engineers, not a vanity press. Our output should be educated
* guidance to the wider community - created with diligence and offered with
humility.
* We can do no more and should do no
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* But that's really not the point here. The role of an _engineering_ taskforce
* is to act like engineers, not a vanity press. Our output should be educated
* guidance to the wider community - created with diligence and offered with humility.
* We can do no more and
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:02:09 PDT, Mark Seery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
thing depending on your view). Put another way, if the criminal justice system
had the same level of effectiveness at protecting physical assets, I wonder
whether civilization as we know it would exist.
If you want to take
That is a fair point, but I would observe that there are plenty of more
cases where locks were not sufficient.
If there are no tradeoffs to actions/feedback loops, then agents in a
system can not make optimization/fitness decisions and evolution does
not occur.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
snip
the market has sight. market analysts have hind-sight.
engineering is about fore-sight. therein lies a world of
difference in roles and responsibilities.
The fore-sight of any role is constrained by assumptions. An engineer who
designs a building to withstand a collision with a 707
Keith Moore wrote:
snip
the market has sight. market analysts have hind-sight.
engineering is about fore-sight. therein lies a world of
difference in roles and responsibilities.
The fore-sight of any role is constrained by assumptions. An engineer who
designs a building to withstand a
there is no perfect foresight. there is no perfect hindsight either.
nor is the market either efficient or reliable at choosing good solutions.
It appears the word market is overloaded with lots of social/political
ideology so rather than go down that road, let me redirect the point by
Keith Moore wrote:
snip
These days, a lot of people seem to be arguing that IETF shouldn't do
engineering.
Hopefully not - not I for sure, I mean that would require a name change
;-) What I think exists is a difference of opinion about what the
definition of engineering is. Another
These days, a lot of people seem to be arguing that IETF shouldn't do
engineering.
What I think exists is a difference of opinion about what the
definition of engineering is.
another way to put it is - after ~17 years of IETF, we need to start
defining what Internet Engineering means.
10 matches
Mail list logo
