Subject: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression

From: Ed Juskevicius <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:23:21 -0500

My first impression the "IETF Outcomes" Wiki is very positive.  This has the
potential to be a really useful reference tool for anyone looking to get a
perspective on a particular technology.

The process of populating this Wiki should also enable a lot of interesting
"water cooler" style discussions on successes and failures.  For example,
I agree that IPv6 adoption is "poor" today, and the outcome is "still
pending"

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/wiki/IetfInternet

I also agree we want "massive adoption of IPv6" as soon as possible.

This being said, what if IPv6 got massively adopted this year?  That would
be great, but it would also be more than 15 years after we started working
on it.  Would that be a massive success, or "narrowly averting disaster" ?

Many Thanks to David (and anyone else involved) in getting this organized !

Regards,

Ed Juskevicius

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:38:04 -0800

> Many Thanks to David (and anyone else involved) in getting this organized !

The Charter page has an Acknowledgements section, for initial contributors.

    <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/wiki/IetfCharter>

There was an intense round of activity for about 6 weeks, as folk discovered use 
cases that required revising the style of the information and finally prompted a 
wiki format.

I'm fully expecting that there will other entries to add that don't quite fit, 
and we'll have to consider the right revisions to support them.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:42 -0800

On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Ed Juskevicius wrote:

> My first impression the "IETF Outcomes" Wiki is very positive.  This  
> has the potential to be a really useful reference tool for anyone  
> looking to get a perspective on a particular technology.
>
> The process of populating this Wiki should also enable a lot of  
> interesting "water cooler" style discussions on successes and  
> failures.

I believe this is a key point to assure IETF's future successes.
I've for long been advocating the need to learn from one's past; even  
tried to jot down a couple pieces on my own (see "NAT in Retrospect", http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/papers/NAT-in-Retrospect.pdf)

We need to look back in order to move forward faster (reduce  
probability of errors), both in technology (what works and what  
doesnt), and in process (what has gone right/wrong, or how to do better)

> For example, I agree that IPv6 adoption is "poor" today, and the  
> outcome is "still pending"
>

I agree with that statement, though how to move IPv6 deployment  
forward seems to me belong to discussions elsewhere.  I feel that a  
potentially helpful discussion on this list could be a retrospective  
view on the whole IPv6 development process -- why didn't IPv6 get  
rolled out once it's done, as expected?  Personally I've thought about  
that question. If the community reaches a shared view on this, I  
believe it could help us see better into next, e.g. questions like:

> This being said, what if IPv6 got massively adopted this year?

even if no shared understanding is reached, I feel it would still be  
useful to put a few different theories all on the table.

my 2 cents,
Lixia