Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression

[Lixia Zhang <[e-mail]>]

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