Expediency or Correctness WAS: Level of Abstraction
> If you want something that's simple, has fewer entries, and is less
> subject to criticism, I'll shut up.
At the risk of incorrectly speaking for MITRE (Bill
and Steve and a host of others may disagree with me
on anything I say!), I think what MITRE wants is to
help facilitate whatever is best for the community.
That's not a platitude. It really is the driving
charter of MITRE.
If the right thing for the community is for there
to be something that is more complex, has more
entries (and is more work for us all to produce) and
is subject to less criticism, then by all means, now
is the time to speak.
At the same time, we are attempting to navigate waters
that have scuttled many a ship that was seeking the
pay-off of a workable standards. If we err on the side
of too much simplicity, we may gain expediency but
end up with something that is fundementally flawed. If we
err on the side of absolute correctness, we may theoretically
gain better defensibility but we will almost certainly
become fetched up on the rocks of collective indecision.
We are very, very, very committed to seeking the right
thing here. While we may have our own interanal opinions
about how to best balance expediency versus correctness,
ultimately the measure of correctness lies with the
entire Editorial Board.
Perhaps the more important question here is to ask for
your input on how to balance these competing goals
relative to the level of abstraction problem. Do we
as a group need more time? Will more time really
produce more agreement? Does MITRE, in the name of
expediency, need to force a decision?
As always, your collective feedback is the crucial
David Mann || phone: (781) 271 - 2252
INFOSEC Engineer/Scientist, Sr ||
Enterprise Security Solutions || fax: (781) 271 - 3957
The MITRE Corporation ||
Bedford, Mass 01730 || e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org