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

Dave CROCKER <> Tue, 09 February 2010 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3514D3A73F5; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2FpXdgn-sHH9; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7D43A73E9; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o19GLJeG001587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:21:24 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:21:15 -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
To: David Harrington <>
References: <> <048101caa80f$db2ee5a0$> <E25EFA3754F74B2AB6D11BBA3685FD70@BertLaptop> <> <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl> <064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$>
In-Reply-To: <064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10371/Tue Feb 9 05:33:13 2010 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:21:24 -0800 (PST)
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 16:20:21 -0000


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'.


ps.  I also note you've been busy updating net management-related entries.  Thanks!


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking