Re: [ietf-outcomes] "Instances" column

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Mon, 15 February 2010 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310653A75FB for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:54:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMpyImgx0iwf for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984D53A70D4 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.20]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hxQB1d0020SCNGk5B1vlwt; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:55:45 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.147.240.98]) by omta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id i1vk1d007284sdk3V1vkkt; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:55:44 +0000
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <4B7721D4.7070402@dcrocker.net> <0ac101caad3d$30530d40$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4B781883.70905@bbiw.net> <0ad301caada2$8e1e2d50$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4B7844F2.5060209@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:55:43 -0500
Message-ID: <0ae601caade1$fbe842f0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <4B7844F2.5060209@joelhalpern.com>
Thread-Index: AcqtpftAi5uQo6iWSJG4TiRjCWT+iQAOr2wg
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org, 'Dave CROCKER' <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] "Instances" column
X-BeenThere: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Outcomes Wiki discussion list <ietf-outcomes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-outcomes>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:54:17 -0000

Hi, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'Dave CROCKER'; ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] "Instances" column
> 
> David,
>      The purpose of this is something simple, and easily readable.
>      Factors like the maturity of the documents on the 
> standards track 
> are basically outside the scope of what we are trying to do 
> here.  If we 
> can not figure out a simple way to look at things and saying clear 
> things about whether the work does or has mattered to a significant 
> community, or whether this work is still developing, then I 
> think we are 
> just confusing ourselves.

I never said anything about including information about the documents
on the standards track.

>      Note that the point is not to argue about whether one 
> work effort 
> is better than another, or even whether it is more used than
another.

And I never thought it was, and still don't.

>      To try to capture subtle distinctions in this would complicate 
> things without adding significant value.  This is, as I read things,

> intended as a broad brush, subjective effort to capture 
> things where we 
> can say whether it is a success, a failure, or still still 
> growing.  

totally understood.

> I 
> would not be surprised if relatively new efforts don't even 
> fit in the 
> chart. (There is no point in listing the ForCES effort yet.)

that's why we have a pending status.

See my other email about why I think implementation (availability or
vendor adoption) and usage (end-user adoption) should both be
reflected in this wiki.

dbh

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> 
> David Harrington wrote:
> > 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:dcrocker@bbiw.net] 
> >> 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
> >>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ietf-outcomes mailing list
> > ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes
> > 
>