On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:52 PM, Ellis, David wrote:
> It was my hope the sensor and systems charter subcommittee would
> look at the process and roles of converting raw data into
> actionable information and the required informational elements
> which must be exchanged to manage an incident response... Tom
> Merkle and I thought this was a natural progress of the
> infrastructure charter.
I hope neither you nor Tom are taking my comments personally. My
concern was sparked in no small part by looking at the difficulties
the infrastructure SC has faced since its inception... what, three
years ago?
It isn't that these aren't important questions... I'm just not sure
our TC has a broad enough membership to do these architectural tasks
justice. Where we've made headway in the past we've obtained our
initial marching orders, in the forms of requirements and even first-
draft implementations, from larger constituencies.
I'm not even sure it's prudent for our TC to try to set policy
directions. Our charter and expertise has to do with crafting
neutral implementations. If we start trying to do architecture I'm
afraid we might even impair our acceptability with folks who have
their own dogs in the hunt.
Just by way of illustration, I'm attaching two whitepapers by folks
doing innovative work in the "infrastructure" space. These aren't
sensor-oriented, but I suspect they have equivalents in that domain.
(Those who know me know this, but just for the record, my forwarding
these items in no way constitutes an endorsement on my part.)
- Art
