Re: [ietf-outcomes] "Instances" column

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

I would like to see more consistency with existing IETF terminology.

RFC2026 defines three levels of standard.
Proposed requires an agreed upon document.
Draft requires implementations.
Standard requires operational experience.

RFC2026 doesn't talk about instances and usage, it talks about
implementations and operational experience.
Your "instances" column is about implementations, but uses different
terminology than is already in use in the IETF.
Your "adoption" column is about operational experience, but uses
different terminology than IETF process.
I would like to see the results wiki use terminology consistent with
our standards process.

I think using terminology consistent with our process would make these
adoption categories much more intuitive to IETF participants, AND to
those who follow the IETF, such as journalists. I think even to an
IETF newbie, the engineering distinction between implementation and
operational experience would be clear; I do not think the distinction
between instances and adoption is very clear.

It would also be nice if somewhere in the "implementation/instances"
page hierarchy, we had pointers to BCP 9 (RFC 5657) "Guidance on
Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", and to specific implementation reports found at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html. This might help
encourage implementers to file actual implementation reports.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 10:37 AM
> To: David Harrington
> Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] "Instances" column
> 
> David,
> 
> On 2/13/2010 10:16 PM, David Harrington wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think there should be one column for implementations and 
> another for
> > adoption (i.e. usage).
> 
> Hmmm.  Isn't that essentially what is accomplished by having 
> the current 
> Adoption (use) column and the new Instances column?
> 
> What would you like to see that is different (but still 
> simple)... and why?
> 
> 
> > You already set up the ability to have a link to an additional
page
> > via the comments column.
> 
> Yeah.  I thought about that when Ray raised the issue, but 
> decided that a 
> Comments column pointer was generic; it could be for 
> anything.  While the 
> Instances column would be entirely specific. The premise 
> justifying the new 
> column  is that that specific information is worth implicitly 
> asking for.
> 
> 
> >   I recommend making it possible to have an
> > implementation column with a legend (++ through --) and an
optional
> > link to a page with a list of implementations (and possibly 
> links from
> > that page to implementation reports).
> 
> There is a particular benefit in being able to read through a 
> list of names and 
> pointers to their implementations. It gives serious substance 
> to a claim of success.
> 
> What is the benefit in 'rating' the degree of implementation 
> success, as 
> separate from Use?  What question is it answering that 
> affects IETF work, and 
> for whom?
> 
> 
> > The same could be done for the usage column - allow an iptional
link
> > to a page listing known usages, with possible deployemnt 
> reports (and
> > if usage is what we are measuring in the adoption column, then the
> > column should probably be called usage).
> 
> "Reports" for such things as deployment moves this entire 
> activity into a world 
> of formal accounting that is common among some standards 
> efforts, but relatively 
> foreign to the IETF.  It's the sort of thing entailing 
> significant effort, for 
> little apparent benefit.  But feel free to enlighten me...
> 
> As for changing adoption to usage, i suspect you are right.  
> Want to make that 
> suggestion to the list?  (I'm posting too much there, as it 
> is, and really want 
> others to take initiative, as you have been.)
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
>