Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Tue, 09 February 2010 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.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 3CEE328C208 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:52:06 -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=[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 oVPoIJlOdxOp for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EB328C206 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fq6c1d0011uE5Es57rtCr5; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:53:12 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.147.240.98]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id frun1d00E284sdk3crunUf; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:54:48 +0000
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'ops-area \(IETF\)'" <ops-area@ietf.org>, <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401F0D8DA@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <048101caa80f$db2ee5a0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <E25EFA3754F74B2AB6D11BBA3685FD70@BertLaptop> <4B70F71B.7080804@bogus.com> <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:53:11 -0500
Message-ID: <064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl>
Thread-Index: AcqpS7ImPHNuBip2QICb6W0CPSfbGgABvqdAABMzafA=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:52:06 -0000

Hi,

I think it would be good to set success and failure to match rfc 5218,
and have the legends page provide brief descriptions of the
categories, and reference RFC 5218 for more details.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:47 AM
> To: 'Joel Jaeggli'; 'Bert Wijnen (IETF)'
> Cc: 'David Harrington'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'ops-area 
> (IETF)'; ops-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> 
> I'd argue that the wiki is not using the same definition of 
> "success" that we used in RFC 5218. 
> 
> If the data shows that 85 percent of the original 
> implementers of SNMPv1 went on to implement
> SNMPv2 at some point, then if SNMPv1 was a success under the 
> RFC 5218 criteria, then SNMPv2
> would also have to be judged a success. 
> 
> In fact, using the RFC 5218 criteria, SNMPv1/v2 might also be 
> judged as a "wild success"
> in that it was used more widely and for things beyond what 
> the creators envisaged. 
> 
> Note that the RFC 5218 criteria explicitly include the 
> original scope in the definition of
> "success".  For example, if a protocol was deployed for its 
> original purpose in the originally
> envisaged use, that is success. 
> 
> So a protocol such as Kerberos can be judged a "success" even 
> though it is not used in
> consumer scenarios in the same manner as say, SSL/TLS.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja@bogus.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:48 PM
> To: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> Cc: David Harrington; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; ops-area 
> (IETF); ops-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> 
> Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> > 
> > I hope (assume/assumed) that you understand that I 
> certainly also do not
> > agree with
> > what is currently listed on the OPS outcomes page.
> >  
> > It is just that if you read that page.... one would have to 
> come to that
> > conclusion.
> 
> One might also conclude that appart from some rather obvious 
> successes,
> that attempting to determine if something is a success or failure as
> part of the outcomes exercise is a fools errand. Although as with
many
> IETF exercises if enough fools work hard enough you might luck out
and
> end up with something useful.
> 
> > Bert
> 
>