On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:59:32 -0400 , "Gray, Eric"
<Eric(_dot_)Gray(_at_)marconi(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Steven,
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that a problem that is
highly complex should not be solved (or, at least, that we should
consider not solving it). That seems like a cop-out. Minimally,
every problem we've ever faced, we've tried to solve (where "we"
refers to us weak-kneed Homo Sapiens) - no matter how hard it was
to do so - and I like to think that is the right thing to do.
In fairness, I am reasonably sure that point 3 in RFC 1925
refers to making a complex solution work, even if a simpler answer
might be found, simply because enough people want that solution.
It does not - IMO - rule out solving complex problems using
as simple a solution as possible, however complex that might be.
I meant exactly what I said. The reason to avoid certain "solutions" is
that you'll then behave as if the problem is really solved, with bad
consequences if you're wrong -- and for some problems, you probably are
wrong. Read David Parnas' "Software Aspects of Strategic Defense
Systems" (available at
http://klabs.org/richcontent/software_content/papers/parnas_acm_85.pdf);
also consider the historical record on why the US and the USSR signed a
treaty banning most anti-missile systems, and in particular why the
existence of such systems made the existing nuclear deterrent standoff
unstable.
Note carefully that I didn't say we shouldn't do research on how to solve
things. But doing research and declaring that we know how to do something
are two very different things.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf