Re: Deployment Cases

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net>]

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> I think this whole discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
>
> What wholly new protocols has the IETF developed in the past decade? 
> Which ones would you consider successful or not?

Well, that's such a reasonable question, I did a subjective review of Proposed 
Standard RFCs for the last number of years -- ignoring that most recent and 
going back to rougly RFC 2500 -- looking for acronyms that were for 
significant IETF-generated efforts.

Note that I said subjective.  I meant it two ways.  One is that I merely did a 
scan, rather than anything more diligent.  The second is that the list 
reflects my personal reactions as to 'significance' of the effort:


IPv6
DNSSec
Enum
XMPP
CPIM
BEEP
MSRP
SCTP
IPSec
SASL
MPLS
CalDav
RTP
NETCONF
IMAP4
PPP
(a variety of PKI efforts?)
LDAP
OPES
VPIM
FFPIM
GEOPRIV
Diameter
iSCSI
DDDS
SIEVE


A number of questions come to mind:

1.  What additions or removals should be made to the list?

2.  Has the protocol (or set of protocols that pertain to the acronym) gained 
widespread adoption and if so, what does "widespread" mean and what does 
"adoption" mean?  Having 100M+ daily users is definitive, but what about 
smaller numbers that nonetheless dominate an important niche, such as 
"LAN-email office workers"?

3. ...?

d/



> Almost by necessity, newer protocols tend to cover niches, relatively 
> speaking, as opposed to broad swaths of technical territory 
> ("asynchronous message-based communication", "object retrieval", "name 
> mapping").
>
> Henning
>
> On Dec 31, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > > On 28 dec 2007, at 7:41, Franck Martin wrote:
> > > > The "What makes a protocol successful" presentation, shows that the
> > > > best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
> > > > complete. They have already a user pull when they reach IETF.
> > > I don't think that's valid statistics: obviously many of the 
> > > protocols in question were already successful before they were given 
> > > to the IETF, which isn't necessarily the case for protocols developed 
> > > "in-house".
> >
> >
> > That's the point:  protocols created in the IETF, over the last 10 
> > years, do not have a very good record of deployment and use.  
> > Protocols created outside the IETF and then brought into the IETF have 
> > a better track record.
> >
> > This suggests that the IETF has become a place to refine existing 
> > (proven) work and to expand its community of adopters, rather than to 
> > formulate initial work and gain initial adoption.
> >
> > On reflection, this should not be viewed as heretical or even 
> > problematic.
> >
> > When a group grows to have the kind of massively diverse participation 
> > that the IETF now gets, it is rarely going to be possible to develop 
> > or maintain the kind of coherent focus needed to get solid, cohesive 
> > specifications written: Things move from getting "different 
> > perspectives" to getting "constant objections".
> >
> > A successful protocol needs a tight design focus and a a clear market 
> > need. Our current base of participation makes it difficult to 
> > formulate either.
> >
> > d/
> >
> > --
> >
> >  Dave Crocker
> >  Brandenburg InternetWorking
> >  bbiw.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf