[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