Re: Deployment Cases

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: Deployment Cases

Phil,

 

I think I kinda do see what Brian's point is. I don't think it should be a conversation-ender, but Brian is pointing out an issue that we need to work through...

 

As an organization of individuals developing protocol specifications - that's who we are, and that's what we do - we don't even have a natural way to interact with operators, except to invite them to participate as individuals. That has not worked particularly well for a long time.

 

(as an aside: We need one, and from time to time we have made intentional efforts to interact with operators on a specific topic (most recently, Dave Meyer and friends doing the NOG tour to talk about, and listen to concerns about, SHIM6 and IPv6 multihoming), but the point is that interaction with operators doesn't happen as business-as-usual.)

 

I think Brian is saying the same thing about economic/financial analysis - I agree with your statement ("we need to go find someone who does" have expertise in this area), but the devil is in at least a couple of details:

 

o who do we talk to, and

 

o what does that conversation look like?

 

You suggested two sources of input, university economics departments and F500 economics departments. It's worth noting that who we ask will shape what we hear back - visualize this type of discussion for peer-to-peer SIP. Do we ask Columbia.edu? ISPs? PTTs? Vonage? Skype? military? public safety? None of these are a priori WRONG...

 

But I don't see us getting one answer back, reading it, and accepting it without asking questions. What's the forum for "rough consensus" about deployment incentives?

 

Who actually asks for input? When? Do we hope the people we ask will attend IETF meetings so we can discuss with them? attend IESG telechats specifically about new work? or something else?

 

Who analyses what we hear back? This would almost certainly involve changes to the IETF leadership and/or structure, because the position descriptions for IAB and IESG don't say anything about expertise in this area. Again, this isn't beyond imagination, we just can't ignore it.

 

While I would not suggest adoption of IEEE processes without thought, it's worth being aware that IEEE 802 uses "five criteria" in evaluating new work (sample for IEEE 802.21 at http://www.ieee802.org/21/802_21_5Criteria.doc), and some of the criteria, "Broad market potential" and "economic feasibility", seem to touch on what we're talking aout here.

 

Is this, broadly speaking, what you are thinking about, for IETF?

 

Thanks,

 

Spencer

I don't see the point you are trying to make here.

If we need some expertise and don't feel we have it in the ietf we go find someone who does. We have the ability to tap into any of the top universities economics departments and this stuff is surely understood somewhere in the fortune 500 companies here.

We are in the business of communication, of collaboration. If we can't do either shame on us.

What is worse, to think we are expert economists or that because we are not economists the whole field must be irrelevant? I don't think we need to go too deep here, just thinking in terms of deployment as the challenge is a start.

As for defining marketting as bending of facts. There are two processes that can be thought of as marketting. Shifting product is really a form of sales. I am talking about the processes you go through to determine whether your product meets a genuine market need. Fudging such a study is self deception and only leads to tears.

I always thought that the point of engineering was that you define yourself by the ends you are seeking to achieve, not a particular skill set. If you need a skill you seek to acquire it.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf