Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression

Lixia Zhang <> Wed, 03 February 2010 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4139D3A680D for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84n3a1xZ7VS5 for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2928E3A685D for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AB039E80F2; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EfN98s3u4neS; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1438039E80E0; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Lixia Zhang <>
To: Ed Juskevicius <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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, 03 Feb 2010 14:53:42 -0800
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Outcomes Wiki discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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",

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"
> 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,