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

"Bernard Aboba" <> Tue, 09 February 2010 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD823A7486; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.041
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.558, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tRxARYZbqQA7; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BE33A720D; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU137-DS4 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:27:24 -0800
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <BLU137-DS4FD3AA173C43E69670B9A93500@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <>
To:, 'David Harrington' <>
References: <> <048101caa80f$db2ee5a0$> <E25EFA3754F74B2AB6D11BBA3685FD70@BertLaptop> <> <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl> <064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:28:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acqpo+bGRNswnBUGTq27qcxqjns3iAAIBjtg
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2010 20:27:24.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A44C4C0:01CAA9C6]
Cc:, "'ops-area (IETF)'" <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:26:18 -0000

Dave Crocker said:

"This means that a protocol is a failure if it is widely used, but for
purposes than it was intended."

[BA] If a protocol has been implemented, deployed and used, I don't think
can qualify as a failure under the RFC 5218 definition. From 
Section 1.4:

"   Failure, or the lack of success, cannot be determined before allowing
   sufficient time to pass (e.g., 5-10 years for an average protocol).
   Failure criteria include:

   o  No mainstream implementations.  There is little or no support in
      hosts, routers, or other classes of relevant devices.

   o  No deployment.  Devices that support the protocol are not
      deployed, or if they are, then the protocol is not enabled.

   o  No use.  While the protocol may be deployed, there are no
      applications or scenarios that actually use the protocol."

Dave Crocker also said:

"Deployed" is also a problem, since there is a long track record of
having deployed something but never actually using it very much.  I submit
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
'adoption'. However Target Segment uses 'use'."

[BA] I'd suggest that implementation, deployment and use are separate
worth documenting separately.  If that is done, we may learn 
something about the characteristics that affect success at each stage. 

One aspect that bothers me about use is the definition of each category. 

Surely if almost nobody uses something, it is a "--" failure (e.g. IPsec
But what if the protocol is used by the people it is designed for, but not
the vast majority of humanity? 

I use Kerberos all the time, but most people probably don't.  What category
this fall in?  Probably not "++" or "++>", but not "--" either.  So we're
with "-" and "+".  How are these categories defined?