Re: [arch-d] [IAB] Review of: draft-iab-protocol-transitions-05

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/21/2017 3:38 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>     The document tends to merely mention essential issues, such as
> incentives, without giving much insight into either methods for
> adequately assessing incentives or deciding how to consider them in
> protocol design.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately we may not have a lot of experience with such methods.
> However, I have made several notable changes in response to this and
> others’ comments.

Dave,

So, my primary concern is that when something is mentioned, it is made 
sufficiently real to the reader, so there is some shared substance to 
their understanding, among the range of readers we expect for the document.

If the best shared understanding that is possible is that we don't 
understand this item well, well, that at least is honest (and, in an odd 
way, thorough.)


>     Might be worth adding some examples of highly successful
> transitions.  MIME is, predictably, my favorite example.  There had been
> multiple attempts to replace existing, text-based email with a new
> version that supported multi-media.  MIME instead created an overlay
> that required no change to the infrastructure.
>
>
>
> When the discussed it, the consensus was that additional case studies in
> the doc were not necessary.  Unless of course there’s a key point that
> would be called out that isn’t captured at all in the other case studies.

Here's the catch:  (similar to my above point) Who is the document for?

A paper like this, without diligent examples, is purely conceptual.  A 
typical reader will not have enough background to be able to move from 
the abstract text of the document to the real-world design and planning 
efforts that they do.  Examples are not just to explain the concepts, 
but to tie them to pragmatics for which a reader is likely to have a 
background.



>     These above suggestions are in line with Eliot's call for more
> 'meat'.  The document touches on essential issues.  But for the IETF to
> deal with the issues well, there needs to be more detailed basis giving
> guidance for how to attend to them. This is particularly important for
> issues such as incentives analysis and aligning to incentives, since
> they are topics not normally within the purview of Internet engineers.
>
> (If the feeling is that the meat should be added via later documents
> then there should at least, now, be development of some plan for those
>
> documents.)
>
>
>
>     Stewart's call for considering the requirement of transition
> considerations -- I'd suggest 'adoption considerations' -- would press
> working groups to do far more due diligence about the barriers to
> adoption that is typically done now.
>
>
>
> Perhaps, but that’s feedback for the IESG to consider, rather than the
> IAB’s purview per se.

In terms of making requirements for the IETF stream, sure.  But in terms 
of pressing the benefit of the exercise, no matter who is doing the work 
or under whose aegis, no.  The latter is entirely reasonable for the IAB 
to describe and promote...


> Detailed:
>
>
>
> I believe I’ve incorporated your various detailed points into the new
> draft, soon to be posted…


Thanks for the thoughtful response and (of course) for the doc 
modifications...

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net