IMHO, this thread of this discussion belongs to the HIP WG list. I
am replying there.
--Pekka Nikander
On Sep 17, 2005, at 15:48, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15-sep-2005, at 9:57, Pekka Nikander wrote:
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should
work hard to
On 15-sep-2005, at 9:57, Pekka Nikander wrote:
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should
work hard to create a new waist for the architecture. I, of
course, have my own theory where the new waist should be and how
it should be implemented,
Well, don't be shy:
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should
work hard to create a new waist for the architecture. I, of
course, have my own theory where the new waist should be and how
it should be implemented,
Well, don't be shy: where can we absorb these insights?
Since you ask:
On 14:32 13/09/2005, Pekka Nikander said:
OTOH, maybe I am just a dreamer and totally off the ground here?
No, you are not!
However the problem with a vision is to know where the boarder is
between dreams and real future. This is why I prefer a more prosaïc
model which gives a simple image
On 13-sep-2005, at 14:32, Pekka Nikander wrote:
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should work
hard to create a new waist for the architecture. I, of course,
have my own theory where the new waist should be and how it should
be implemented,
Well, don't be shy:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
If you have complicated requirements, you are wrong.
You are only ever wrong if you do not listen to your customers and as a
result fail to provide them with what they want.
This is a vast oversimplification. Even if you give your customers what
they want,
Jari Arkko wrote:
- Good architecture and good design. Placement of
functionality in the right place. I suspect that we
don't do enough work in this area. Almost all
of our activities are related to specific protocol
pieces, not so much on how they work together,
what the whole needs to do,
--On søndag, september 11, 2005 17:57:29 -0400 Henning Schulzrinne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Generalization of point solutions. Even major new
functionality often starts out as the need of a specialized
group of users. If you always do only what is needed
right now and don't think ahead
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The assumption that specialized protocols are needed for every
new application.
That's irrelevant.
The question is whether the application is complicated or not.
As an example, SIP is more complicated than it has
to be because there was a decision to support
Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
If you have complicated requirements, you are wrong.
You are only ever wrong if you do not listen to your customers and as a
result fail to provide them with what they want.
The world is complex, sometimes solutions must also be complex. In those
cases the design
On Monday, September 12, 2005 10:13:52 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
If you have complicated requirements, you are wrong.
You are only ever wrong if you do not listen to your customers and as a
result fail to provide them with what they
standards bloat solution:
anyone proposing a new feature has to propose two features to be retired.
anyone proposing a new standard has to propose two standards to be
retired.
This is a fun thread, but if we ever decide to get serious
about complexity, we can't assume a static Internet or
- Good architecture and good design. Placement of
functionality in the right place. I suspect that we
don't do enough work in this area. Almost all
of our activities are related to specific protocol
pieces, not so much on how they work together,
what the whole needs to do, what etc.
--On 9. september 2005 13:55 -0500 Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This was quite funny - both of you!
Of course, the first thing to do when you want to lose complexity is
Stop adding to the problem (as in Put down the fork and push away from
the table...).
standards bloat
Pekka Nikander wrote:
In a whimsical mood, I put up a web page that tries to
clarify the comments that I made about complexity during
the Paris IETF Thursday plenary. So, for your bed time
enjoyment:
http://www.tml.tkk.fi/~pnr/FAT/
Pekka this is a outstanding piece of work and I would
PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems or
alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol
Pekka Nikander wrote:
In a whimsical mood, I put up a web page that tries to
clarify
?
Grumble Grumble .. burp
See you in Vancouver,
Spencer
From: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pekka Nikander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems or
alternatively Why IMS is a big fat
17 matches
Mail list logo
