Re: IETF Outcomes wiki

I'd argue that the wiki is not using the same definition of "success" that we used in RFC 5218. 

If the data shows that 85 percent of the original implementers of SNMPv1 went on to implement
SNMPv2 at some point, then if SNMPv1 was a success under the RFC 5218 criteria, then SNMPv2
would also have to be judged a success. 

In fact, using the RFC 5218 criteria, SNMPv1/v2 might also be judged as a "wild success"
in that it was used more widely and for things beyond what the creators envisaged. 

Note that the RFC 5218 criteria explicitly include the original scope in the definition of
"success".  For example, if a protocol was deployed for its original purpose in the originally
envisaged use, that is success. 

So a protocol such as Kerberos can be judged a "success" even though it is not used in
consumer scenarios in the same manner as say, SSL/TLS.  





-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:48 PM
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
Cc: David Harrington; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; ops-area (IETF); [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki

Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> 
> I hope (assume/assumed) that you understand that I certainly also do not
> agree with
> what is currently listed on the OPS outcomes page.
>  
> It is just that if you read that page.... one would have to come to that
> conclusion.

One might also conclude that appart from some rather obvious successes,
that attempting to determine if something is a success or failure as
part of the outcomes exercise is a fools errand. Although as with many
IETF exercises if enough fools work hard enough you might luck out and
end up with something useful.

> Bert