[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Jan 2 15:22:49 UTC 2014


On 02-Jan-14 09:41, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>     Agree Avri, and this is the kind of reasoning that we, from the
>     technical community, must be open enough to agree to explore …. We
>     should not bash out  perceived (or even sometime very real) problems
>     just because no one want to work on new technical challenge that
>     addressing the issue may pose.
> Perceived problems are not problems. If you base technical analysis and
> development based on perception you will get perceived solutions.
> My .02

Thank you.

When doing risk or impact analysis, however, one has nothing but 
perceived problems - it is not until later that one finds out how the 
world actually unfolded. Sometimes, when impact analysis, planning, 
design and implementation do their job properly, the perceived problems 
are dealt with easily.  Sometimes a perceived problem is just a problem 
averted. And sometimes a perceive problem is just that, a possible that 
never became actual.

In terms of perceived problems, IPv4 has been running out since the 
early 1990s - I think that was when I saw the first projections.   With 
approximately half of the addresses still unused today, one can ask: to 
what extent this particular perceived problem turned into a self 
fulfilling prophecy?  So yes, one has to be careful with the risk and 
impact analyses to not become so dedicated to ones own perceived problem 
set, one actually brings it about.


More information about the discuss mailing list