Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Wed, 03 February 2010 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
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 4139D3A680D for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:01 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 84n3a1xZ7VS5 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2928E3A685D for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AB039E80F2; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EfN98s3u4neS; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (cpe-98-151-62-175.socal.res.rr.com [98.151.62.175]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1438039E80E0; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <6BD28535-9D27-4A16-98CC-30ECD76EB12C@cs.ucla.edu>
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
To: Ed Juskevicius <edj.etc@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9e8bc9821002031323t8f4bddcqbec9b76cda722806@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:42 -0800
References: <9e8bc9821002031323t8f4bddcqbec9b76cda722806@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:53:01 -0000

On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Ed Juskevicius wrote:

> My first impression the "IETF Outcomes" Wiki is very positive.  This  
> has the potential to be a really useful reference tool for anyone  
> looking to get a perspective on a particular technology.
>
> The process of populating this Wiki should also enable a lot of  
> interesting "water cooler" style discussions on successes and  
> failures.

I believe this is a key point to assure IETF's future successes.
I've for long been advocating the need to learn from one's past; even  
tried to jot down a couple pieces on my own (see "NAT in Retrospect", http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/papers/NAT-in-Retrospect.pdf)

We need to look back in order to move forward faster (reduce  
probability of errors), both in technology (what works and what  
doesnt), and in process (what has gone right/wrong, or how to do better)

> For example, I agree that IPv6 adoption is "poor" today, and the  
> outcome is "still pending"
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/wiki/IetfInternet
>
> I also agree we want "massive adoption of IPv6" as soon as possible.

I agree with that statement, though how to move IPv6 deployment  
forward seems to me belong to discussions elsewhere.  I feel that a  
potentially helpful discussion on this list could be a retrospective  
view on the whole IPv6 development process -- why didn't IPv6 get  
rolled out once it's done, as expected?  Personally I've thought about  
that question. If the community reaches a shared view on this, I  
believe it could help us see better into next, e.g. questions like:

> This being said, what if IPv6 got massively adopted this year?

even if no shared understanding is reached, I feel it would still be  
useful to put a few different theories all on the table.

my 2 cents,
Lixia