[ietf-outcomes] Notation for "multi-phase" efforts
Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 06 February 2010 21:25 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 1CFBD3A6E11 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:25:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lBdl7e7Q-wpV for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F063A6A88 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o16LQYOJ010203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:26:39 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6DDE83.2040909@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:26:27 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10362/Fri Feb 5 23:14:06 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ietf-outcomes] Notation for "multi-phase" efforts
X-BeenThere: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:25:45 -0000
Folks, Some IETF work goes through stages of maturity. The positive form of this is version 1, version 2, and so on. A less happy form consists of one or more false-starts, before possibly going down a path that leads to success. How should we enter data into the Outcomes wiki, to reflect these phases? Phases are common enough to warrant being consistent in how we indicate them. The basic approach that has been taken with a few such examples in the current wiki is to have a separate entry for each phase. This has the benefit of permitting an independent outcome assessment, and other details, for each phase. The challenge, then, is how to indicate that two or more entries are related. For example, the current Internet page has 3 entries for IPv6 and it is not clear how they are related. I think the easiest is to choose among 3 simple alternatives: 1) Add a qualifier to the name in the Technology/Service column (1st column) 2) Add a comment to the Description column (2d col) 3) Add a comment to the Comments column (last col.) My own feeling is that it's more helpful to highlight these relationships and that adding qualifier to Col 1 is the way to do, where the qualifier could perhaps be the year the phase /starts/. So, for example, DNSSec currently has two entries and they could become: DNSSec 1994 DNSSec 1997 My think is that marking the start of an effort is sometimes much easier than marking its finish, since the wiki does not (necessarily) define an entry based on a single RFC publication. Thoughts? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [ietf-outcomes] Notation for "multi-phase" efforts Dave CROCKER