Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Tue, 09 February 2010 18:33 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 85A083A75AA for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:33:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 4xBZ9wrYEukK for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:33:18 -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 25A283A75A6 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:33:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fr3t1d0131ZXKqc5BuaS4r; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:34:26 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.147.240.98]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fubf1d00C284sdk3hubfzN; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:35:39 +0000
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401F0D8DA@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <048101caa80f$db2ee5a0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <E25EFA3754F74B2AB6D11BBA3685FD70@BertLaptop> <4B70F71B.7080804@bogus.com> <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl> <064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4B718B7B.6000401@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:34:24 -0500
Message-ID: <067401caa9b6$813ab210$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: <4B718B7B.6000401@dcrocker.net>
Thread-Index: Acqpo+8ez1azuWg7Tmm3ZJxOxZSOBwADm+Gg
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:33:19 -0000

Hi,

Because it would be good to "standardize" our measurements of success
and failure of IETF protocols.
RFC5218 was written, presumably, to help developers better understand
what makes a protocol successful.
The results wiki is, presumably, for a similar purpose.
It would be nice if the IETF reached consensus on some definitions for
success and failure before we start advertising our successes and
failures in a public wiki.
To represent consensus, maybe both the wiki and the definitions in
RFC5218 need to be modified.

I support the wiki, but would like the methodology to be documented so
different people can edit it in a consistent manner, so readers can
interpret it with some consistency. It has too much opportunity for
unintended consequences to do it wrong. 

One problem with a wiki is that it can represent the personal opinion
of the last person to edit it, rather than to represent the consensus
of the IETF. But it is posted on the official IETF web site, and can
easily be mistaken to represent an official statement of consensus.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:21 AM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'ops-area (IETF)'; ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> 
> Dave,
> 
> On 2/9/2010 7:53 AM, David Harrington wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it would be good to set success and failure to 
> match rfc 5218,
> > and have the legends page provide brief descriptions of the
> > categories, and reference RFC 5218 for more details.
> 
> 
> The easy question is:  why?
> 
> The definition in RFC 5218 is:
> 
>       "we consider a successful protocol to be one that both 
> meets its original
>       goals and is widely deployed."
> 
> This means that a protocol is a failure if it is widely used, 
> but for different 
> purposes than it was intended.
> 
> "Deployed" is also a problem, since there is a long track 
> record of industry's 
> having deployed something but never actually using it very 
> much.  I submit all 
> of OSI as a prime example.
> 
>       These are the reasons the wiki was premised on the 
> simple measure of use.
> 
> However I note that the column that lists degree of success 
> only uses the word 
> 'adoption'. However Target Segment uses 'use'.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps.  I also note you've been busy updating net 
> management-related entries.  Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> 
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
>