Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 12 November 2012 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE4821F8686 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:51:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OH9V5Zgj9Q8e for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:44:76:96:27:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335B021F85BB for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.36]) by qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NgtK1k0020mlR8UAEir30W; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:51:03 +0000
Received: from [10.155.35.198] ([128.107.239.234]) by omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Nios1k009547xYo8XiouFN; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:49:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <20121112180112.A303B18C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:48:40 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <272D6936-F0F3-4E4D-B9D1-516ADAE5CB46@tony.li>
References: <20121112180112.A303B18C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:51:03 -0000

>>> a design which requires changes to all hosts is, IMO, a non-starter.
> 
>> Why?
> 
> Practise shows that it doesn't work.
> 
> We can speculate as to why: my theory is that it increases the cost (in a
> broader sense than just $/Euros/etc), and I think you need to have a pretty
> low cost threshold to get new stuff out.
> 
> YMMV.


Past experiences need not be a predictor of future failure.  ;-)

The cost of software changes to the end user are now pretty much lost in the churn of maintenance releases and new devices.

Thus, the real hurdle that has to be accomplished is to woo the OS providers.  Convince them to implement and distribute and that solves the deployment problem.  And to convince the OS providers, you have to show them the killer app.  Without a value add, it's not in their interest.

But once you do have that value add, it would seem to be all downhill.

Tony