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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 10 February 2010 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
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 1304328C162 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, 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 bhZvZ6h4BLEW for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A061B28C184 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:45:33 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,442,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="204450889"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2010 05:46:42 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,442,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="444214713"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2010 05:46:42 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:45:25 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401F0E0A1@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <067401caa9b6$813ab210$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
Thread-Index: Acqpo+8ez1azuWg7Tmm3ZJxOxZSOBwADm+GgACH6ZmA=
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401F0D8DA@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <048101caa80f$db2ee5a0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <E25EFA3754F74B2AB6D11BBA3685FD70@BertLaptop> <4B70F71B.7080804@bogus.com> <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl><064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com><4B718B7B.6000401@dcrocker.net> <067401caa9b6$813ab210$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:45:35 -0000

The wiki page includes a line that says: 

'The wiki is only as complete and accurate as community effort makes
it.' 

It would probably be good to add a phrase that makes clear that the
information contained here does not represent the consensus of the IETF.


Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-outcomes-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:ietf-outcomes-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:34 PM
> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Because it would be good to "standardize" our measurements of 
> success and failure of IETF protocols.
> RFC5218 was written, presumably, to help developers better 
> understand what makes a protocol successful.
> The results wiki is, presumably, for a similar purpose.
> It would be nice if the IETF reached consensus on some 
> definitions for success and failure before we start 
> advertising our successes and failures in a public wiki.
> To represent consensus, maybe both the wiki and the definitions in
> RFC5218 need to be modified.
> 
> I support the wiki, but would like the methodology to be 
> documented so different people can edit it in a consistent 
> manner, so readers can interpret it with some consistency. It 
> has too much opportunity for unintended consequences to do it wrong. 
> 
> One problem with a wiki is that it can represent the personal 
> opinion of the last person to edit it, rather than to 
> represent the consensus of the IETF. But it is posted on the 
> official IETF web site, and can easily be mistaken to 
> represent an official statement of consensus.
> 
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:21 AM
> > To: David Harrington
> > Cc: 'ops-area (IETF)'; ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> > 
> > Dave,
> > 
> > On 2/9/2010 7:53 AM, David Harrington wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > The easy question is:  why?
> > 
> > The definition in RFC 5218 is:
> > 
> >       "we consider a successful protocol to be one that 
> both meets its 
> > original
> >       goals and is widely deployed."
> > 
> > This means that a protocol is a failure if it is widely 
> used, but for 
> > different purposes than it was intended.
> > 
> > "Deployed" is also a problem, since there is a long track record of 
> > industry's having deployed something but never actually 
> using it very 
> > much.  I submit all of OSI as a prime example.
> > 
> >       These are the reasons the wiki was premised on the simple 
> > measure of use.
> > 
> > However I note that the column that lists degree of success 
> only uses 
> > the word 'adoption'. However Target Segment uses 'use'.
> > 
> > d/
> > 
> > ps.  I also note you've been busy updating net management-related 
> > entries.  Thanks!
> > 
> > --
> > 
> >    Dave Crocker
> >    Brandenburg InternetWorking
> >    bbiw.net
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-outcomes mailing list
> ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes
>