the correct url is
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-itat-report/
no trailing minus. why cite a broken url?
evolution in the smtp space? Um, DMARC?
for thoughts on http as an hourglass waist, see
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery/lloyd-wood-turning-http-into-a-standalone-layer-ietf-75-tsvarea-slides.pdf
- it's a little hard to see http as a waist when it's so tightly coupled to
tcp. That is unlikely to change, as the benefits of uncoupling are for edge
cases.
many involved in the ietf, myself included, began contributing as grad
students. As with academic paper review, it's how the
interested/enthusiastic/unpaid learn.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
[sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com]
Sent: 18 April 2014 07:11
To: iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Internet Technology Adoption and Transition
Hello,
At 19:11 17-04-2014, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of "Report from the IAB workshop on
Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT)" prior to
potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.
The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-itat-report-/
I read the report. Section 2 mentions that SMTP and IMAP in the
applications space have continued to evolve. I have not see much
evolution in the SMTP space. I'll leave the relevant people to
comment about IMAP. As a nit, the reference for IPv6 is incorrect.
Section 5.1 mentioned that the workshop looked at patents as a means
to improve interoperability. Are there any papers about the two
sides of the argument?
Section 7 mentions that the role of the IAB (in respect to working
group formation) consists of providing guidance to the IESG on which
birds of a feather sessions should be held, review of proposed
working group charters, and shepherding some work so that it can
reach a suitable stage for standardization. What is the role of the
IAB in respect to technology adoption? A protocol, as viewed by the
IETF, is one part of the technology. How does the IAB communicate
that "big picture" to the average IETF participant? How does the IAB
reach out to governments?
Section 7.3 mentions that "As we considered work in the workshop, our
partners such as ICANN and the RIRs can continue to play a role in
encouraging deployment of protocols through their policies". That's
names and numbers. Is it the view of members of the IAB (in an
individual capacity) that these bodies can provide incentives for
IPv6 adoption?
The reports mentions that IETF working groups could leverage graduate
students in many universities around the world in helping review
documents (drafts, RFCs etc.). I personally do not think that it
would help the review workload. Anyway, what's the technology
adoption angle here?
The questions which were asked recently is who takes (some)
responsibility for the technology and how things are being done
outside the IETF. The report does not provide new light about
that. I did not find the report interesting as it discussed about
the same old stuff and the conclusion is that the topics deserve
further exploration. The same conclusion could be reached if a
similar workshop was organized next year. The report does not
discussion about transition in any way. How does the IETF move from
Technology X to Technology Y? What are the impediments created by
the IETF? Does the IETF even have the ability to influence the
deployment of the technology?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy