So here is my checklist of criteria:
1) What problem are you trying to solve? 2) Why is this problem important? 3) Is there a community of interest to develop it? 4) Who are the essential participants (gatekeepers) and will they participate?
All 4 above were known (IMO) for IPv10 - IPv6 transition, the slow pace of that transition, v6ops WG, and members of v6ios - in order.
I think this misses the key flaw with the IP10 proposal.
It failed to present a solution with enough interest to move forward.
IETF participants decide for themselves how to spend their resources and this is one of many proposals that simply didn’t gather enough interest.
If you’re looking for a checklist, IMO, is the Heilmeier catechism is better:
- What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
- How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
- What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
- Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?
- What are the risks?
- How much will it cost?
- How long will it take?
- What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success?
IPv10 failed at step 3.
Simply wanting to solve a problem isn’t enough.
Joe
|
