Re: [ietf-outcomes] "adoption" -> "usage"

Dave CROCKER <> Mon, 15 February 2010 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A983A7B69 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:50:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.568
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id enujdMAK5nfz for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D403A7B67 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1FFpUGv006433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:51:35 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:51:29 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10392/Sun Feb 14 17:31:16 2010 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] "adoption" -> "usage"
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:50:06 -0000


On 2/15/2010 7:09 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> I concur with this change. Perhaps we can devise a subsidiary document

Well, that's enough support for the proposal so that I went and made the change. 
  (Again, it's easy to reverse if there's a burst of opposition to it.)

> format that each table entry links to that is still free-format but
> that has consistent sections for history of asipitin, actual vs
> intended application, disputes&  problems, etc.

On reflecting about some recent suggestions, it occurs to me that discussions 
probably ought to distinguish between "fixing" the current wiki, versus 
expanding its scope.  Correcting problems such as mis-labeling a column are 
always good to do, of course.

But as we know from working group processes doing specifications, scope- and 
feature-creep can cause an effort to lose focus.

So I'm hoping that we can maintain a focus on filling in the tables, and defer 
pursuit of the myriad excellent ideas for enhancement.

Once the wiki does a better job of satisfying its original goal -- documenting 
what IETF work has actually become used by the community -- then it will make 
sense to consider expanding its scope.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking