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@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy [sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 18 April 2014 07:11 To: iab@xxxxxxx Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx 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