March 28, 2019
10:10 a.m.
Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote: > It may make sense to actually do a PERT style "what has to happen when > and before what" diagram to document the moving pieces and to help > figure out if there are any tasks we can complete early (e.g. figuring > out how to serve *really big signatures* even if we don't know what the > signature mechanism might be). PERT charts have been under appreciated in software planning this century. I don't quite know why. Maybe it reveals too much about poor planners. ** This is exactly what I'd like to see ** I'd like to see the really-big-signature problem worked on. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-