On 12/31/2010 6:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So I would like to ask for folks to help the community develop some concrete
information about this, by adding entries and comments to the IETF's Outcomes
Some infrastructure changes are designed for the router level of things and some
are designed for host-level. But they provide underlying services that can then
be used for better performance, reliability, or control or to make new
On some further thought about this question, the term "infrastructure" does not
seem to be very helpful.
I suggest we distinguish where the "benefit barrier" is. What kind of adoption
is required before the adopters can gain benefit?
In very rare cases, a single adopter can gain benefit immediately. Even
among the cases that qualify for this classification on a theoretical basis, I
suspect the fact that they qualify is an accident and that they were expected to
have a different adoption requirement, and probably do have a different one,
predominantly. That is, the single-adopter benefit is probably deemed
insufficient. DKIM is an example of this.
Any communicating pair of systems can gain immediate benefit. I like citing
MIME as a stellar example of this. I suppose ARP also qualifies.
All of the systems along the path need to adopt the change before it can
provide benefit. IPv6 is an obvious example of this. In the email arena, so is
Delivery Service Notice. However note that the ability to predict the path is
very poor, so that broader adoption is typically required before a particular
path will happen to provide the necessary support.
Very broad-based adoption by an extended service must first occur. BGP and
DNSSEC are examples.
Ietf mailing list