Eliot Lear feedback on draft-iab-protocol-transitions-05

[dthaler@…]

[Eliot's feedback on the HTTP case study is covered by a separate ticket, the rest of his feedback is here]

First, I have to say that I very much appreciate Dave in particular keeping focus on this area. It's good advice not just for the IETF, but for those who are following. Still, I'd suggest you take another swing.
In general I would suggest that there needs to be more meat. The abstract states that this memo summarizes various things. Ok. The question for me is this: what is it that the board would like to convey to the IETF or to others by way of advice on how to do things better the next time? Now maybe it is because I've been around this block a few times, but I must admit I am left wanting more. And to be sure, there is more to want. See below regarding that. The extreme example of this is Section 4.5. Why does one need a contingency plan? What should an analysis look like in terms of deriving it?

On organization, you seem to be hiding lessons learned in the appendix. I advise against it. Figure out what you really want to convey and then use the information in the Appendix or from elsewhere to support your discussion.

Perhaps one of the most successful transitions we have seen is HDTV in America. It might be worth including that in your appendix. How is it that hundreds of millions of broadcast sets eventually all got converted over in a fixed time period? Obsolescence played a role, regulation played a role, industry alignment played a HUGE role: frequency demand and the ability to sell a much better product with (perhaps) a higher margin for a time made a big difference, I think. HDTV might make a good comparison against, say, IPv6.

[... HTTP discussion moved to separate ticket...]

In the context of IoT, there are right now (plus or minus) a gazillion frameworks floating about that are all about code and not about protocol. It is a foregone conclusion that there will be some consolidation to a number that looks closer 5-10 so that network effects can be enjoyed. Well if that's the case, one question, and maybe this is one for Laura Denardis, is whether this consolidation is a good thing for protocol development. On the one hand it offers tremendous scaling ability to effect transitions. On the other hand, it may concentrate power into a very small group of people regarding that transition.

Nits

Section 1, Bottom of Page 3, Point 3:

Don't underestimate the cost of things other than the hardware/software itself.

This phrase is nearly a triple-negative. How about restating it along the following lines:

It's important to consider costs that go beyond hardware and software, such as...

[dthaler@…]

Expanded Contingency Plan section.
Added a few more pointers to case studies from within the body.
Mention analog-digital TV transition in US as one example.
Updated problematic sentence Eliot called out as a nit.