





Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                           E. Lear, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7305                                     July 2014
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                      Report from the IAB Workshop
         on Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT)

Abstract

   This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB) on Internet Technology Adoption and
   Transition (ITAT).  The workshop was hosted by the University of
   Cambridge on December 4th and 5th of 2013 in Cambridge, UK.  The goal
   of the workshop was to facilitate adoption of Internet protocols,
   through examination of a variety of economic models, with particular
   emphasis at the waist of the hourglass (e.g., the middle of the
   protocol stack).  This report summarizes contributions and
   discussions.  As the topics were wide ranging, there is no single set
   of recommendations for IETF participants to pursue at this time.
   Instead, in the classic sense of early research, the workshop noted
   areas that deserve further exploration.

   Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
   workshop.  The views and positions documented in this report are
   those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB
   views and positions.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7305.







Lear                          Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.








































Lear                          Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Organization of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Motivations and Review of Existing Work . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Economics of Protocol Adoption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  When can bundling help adoption of network
           technologies or services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Internet Protocol Adoption: Learning from Bitcoin . . . .   7
     3.3.  Long term strategy for a successful deployment of
           DNSSEC - on all levels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Framework for analyzing feasibility of Internet
           protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  Best Effort Service as a Deployment Success Factor  . . .   9
   4.  Innovative / Out-There Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  On the Complexity of Designed Systems (and its effect
           on protocol deployment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Managing Diversity to Manage Technological
           Transition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  On Economic Models of Network Technology Adoption,
           Design, and Viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Making Standards Better . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Standards: a love/hate relationship with patents  . . . .  11
     5.2.  Bridge Networking Research and Internet
           Standardization: Case Study on Mobile Traffic
           Offloading and IPv6 Transition Technologies . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  An Internet Architecture for the Challenged . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Other Challenges and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Resilience of the commons: routing security . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Getting to the Next Version of TLS  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Outcomes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Work for the IAB and the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Potential for the Internet Research Task Force  . . . . .  14
     7.3.  Opportunities for Others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Attendees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15













Lear                          Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


1.  Introduction

   The Internet is a complex ecosystem that encompasses all aspects of
   society.  At its heart is a protocol stack with an hourglass shape,
   and IP at its center.  Recent research points to possible
   explanations for the success of such a design and for the significant
   challenges that arise when trying to evolve or change its middle
   section, e.g., as partially evident in the difficulties encountered
   by IPv6.  The workshop had a number of other key examples to
   consider, including the next generation of HTTP and real time web-
   browser communications (WebRTC).  The eventual success of many if not
   all of these protocols will largely depend on our understanding of
   not only what features and design principles contribute lasting
   value, but also how deployment strategies can succeed in unlocking
   that value to foster protocol adoption.  The latter is particularly
   important in that most if not all Internet protocols exhibit strong
   externalities that create strong barriers to adoption, especially in
   the presence of a well-established incumbent.  That is, factors
   beyond the control of the end points (such as middleboxes) can limit
   deployment, sometimes by design.

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops
   designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the
   Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet
   architecture.  This long-term planning function of the IAB is
   complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working
   groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), under the
   leadership of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and area
   directorates.

   Taking into account [RFC5218] on what makes a protocol successful,
   this workshop sought to explore how the complex interactions of
   protocols' design and deployment affect their success.  One of the
   workshop's goals was, therefore, to encourage discussions to develop
   an understanding of what makes protocol designs successful not only
   in meeting initial design goals but more importantly in their ability
   to evolve as these goals and the available technology change.
   Another equally important goal was to develop protocol deployment
   strategies that ensure that new features can rapidly gain enough of a
   foothold to ultimately realize broad adoption.  Such strategies must
   be informed by both operational considerations and economic factors.

   Participants in this workshop consisted of operators, researchers
   from the fields of computer science and economics, and engineers.
   Contributions were wide ranging.  As such, this report makes few
   recommendations for the IETF to consider.





Lear                          Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


1.1.  Organization of This Report

   This report records the participants' discussions.  At the end,
   workshop participants reviewed potential follow-up items.  These will
   be highlighted at each point during the report, and a summary is
   given at the end.

   Section 2 reviews the motivations and existing work, and Section 3
   discusses the economics of protocol adoption.  Section 4 covers
   innovative models for protocol adoption.  Section 5 delves into an
   examination of recent standards issues and some success stories.
   Section 6 examines different views of success factors.  Finally,
   Section 7 examines potential next steps.

2.  Motivations and Review of Existing Work

   Our workshop began with an introduction that asks the question: is
   the neck of the Internet hourglass closed for business?  There are
   numerous instances where progress has been slow, the three biggest
   that come to mind being IPv6 [RFC2480], the Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960], and DNS Security (DNSSEC)
   [RFC4034].  The impact of DNSSEC is of particular interest, because
   it is relied upon for the delivery of other services, such as DNS-
   Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) [RFC6698], and it could
   be used for application discovery services through DNS (specifically
   where security properties are part of that discovery).  Thus,
   slowdown at the neck of the glass can have an impact closer to the
   lip.

   Even when one considers the classic neck of the hourglass to be IP
   and transport layers, it was suggested that the hourglass might
   extend as high as the application layer.



















Lear                          Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


                          ______________________
                          \                    /
                           \   Applications   /
                            \                /
                             \              /
                              \            /
                               \__________/
                                | HTTP(s)|
                                |________|
                               /          \
                              /  TCP/IP    \
                             /______________\
                            /     MPLS/      \
                           /     Framing      \
                          /____________________\
                         /      Physical        \
                        /________________________\

                         HTTP(s) as the new neck?

   This idea was rebutted by the argument that protocols do continue to
   evolve, that protocols like SMTP and IMAP in the applications space
   have continued to evolve, as has the transport layer.

   The workshop moved on to a review of RFC 5218, which discusses
   protocol success factors.  This work was presented in the IETF 70
   plenary and was the basis for this ongoing work.  There were two
   clear outcomes from the discussion.  The first was that the Internet
   Architecture Board should review and consider that document in the
   context of evaluating Birds of a Feather (BoF) session proposals at
   the IETF, so that any working group proposal is carefully crafted to
   address a specific design space and provide positive net value.
   Another aspect was to continue work on tracking the value-specific
   works in terms of success, wild success, or failure.  On that last
   point, failure remains difficult to judge, particularly at the neck
   of the hourglass.















Lear                          Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


3.  Economics of Protocol Adoption

   Several papers were presented that looked at economic aspects of
   protocol adoption.

3.1.  When can bundling help adoption of network technologies or
      services?

   Economics of bundling is a long-studied field, but not as applied to
   protocols.  It is relevant to the IETF and inherent to two key
   notions: layering and "mandatory to implement".  Two current examples
   include DANE atop DNSSEC and WebRTC atop SCTP.  The workshop reviewed
   a model [Weber13] that explores how bundling of two technologies may
   lead to increased or decreased adoption of one or both.  This will
   depend on a number of factors, including costs, benefits, and
   externalities associated with each technology.  (Simply put, an
   externality is an effect or use decision by one set of parties that
   has either a positive or negative impact on others who did not have a
   choice or whose interests were not taken into account.)  Bundling of
   capabilities may provide positive value when individual capabilities
   on their own do not provide sufficient critical mass to propel
   further adoption.  Specifically, bundling can help when one
   technology does not provide positive value until critical mass of
   deployment exists, and where a second technology has low adoption
   cost and immediate value and hence drives initial adoption until
   enough of a user base exists to allow critical mass sufficient for
   the first technology to get positive value.  One question was what
   happens where one technology depends on the other.  That is directly
   tied to "mandatory to implement" discussions within the IETF.  That
   is a matter for follow-on work.  IETF participants can provide
   researchers anecdotal experience to help improve models in this area.

3.2.  Internet Protocol Adoption: Learning from Bitcoin

   The workshop considered an examination of protocol success factors in
   the context of Bitcoin [Boehme13].  Here, there were any number of
   barriers to success, including adverse press, legal uncertainties,
   glitches and breaches, previous failed attempts, and speculative
   attacks.  Bitcoin has thus far overcome these barriers thanks to
   several key factors:

   o  First, there is a built-in reward system for early adopters.
      Participants are monetarily rewarded at an exponentially declining
      rate.

   o  There exist exchanges or conversion mechanisms to directly convert
      Bitcoin to other currencies.




Lear                          Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


   o  Finally, there is some store of value in the currency itself,
      e.g., people find intrinsic value in it.

   The first two of these factors may be transferable to other
   approaches.  One key protocol success factor is direct benefit to the
   participant.  Another key protocol success factor is the ability to
   interface with other systems for mutual benefit.  In the context of
   Bitcoin, there has to be a way to exchange the coins for other
   currencies.  The Internet email system had simpler adaption
   mechanisms to allow interchange with non-Internet email systems; this
   facilitated its success.  Another more simply stated approach is "IP
   over everything".

   A key message from this presentation is that if a protocol imposes
   externalities or costs on other systems, find a means to establish
   incentives for those other players for implementation.  As it
   happens, there is a limited example that is directly relevant to the
   IETF.

3.3.  Long term strategy for a successful deployment of DNSSEC - on all
      levels

   The workshop reviewed the approach Sweden's .SE registry has taken to
   improving deployment of DNSSEC [Lowinder13].  .SE has roughly 1.5
   million domains.  IIS (<https://www.iis.se>) manages the ccTLD
   (Country Code Top Level Domain).  They made the decision to encourage
   deployment of DNSSEC within .SE.  They began by understanding what
   the full ecosystem looked like, who their stakeholders were, and the
   financial, legal, and technical aspects to deployment.  As they began
   their rollout, they charged extra for DNSSEC.  As they put it, this
   didn't work very well.

   They went on to fund development of OpenDNSSEC to remove technical
   barriers to deployment at end sites, noting that tooling was lacking
   in this area.  Even with this development, more tooling is necessary,
   as they point out a need for APIs between the signing zone and the
   registrar.

   To further encourage deployment, the government of Sweden provided
   financial incentives to communities to see that their domains were
   signed.  .SE further provided an incentive to registrars to see that
   their domains were signed.  In summary, .SE examined all the players
   and provided incentives for each to participate.

   The workshop discussed whether or not this model could be applied to
   other domains.  .SE was in a position to effectively subsidize DNS
   deployment because of their ability to set prices.  This may be




Lear                          Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


   appropriate for certain other top-level domains, but it was pointed
   out that the margins of other domains do not allow for a cost
   reduction to be passed on at this point in time.

3.4.  Framework for analyzing feasibility of Internet protocols

   One of the goals of the workshop was to provide ways to determine
   when work in the IETF was likely to lead to adoption.  The workshop
   considered an interactive approach that combines value net analysis,
   deployment environment analysis, and technical architecture analysis
   that leads to feasibility and solution analysis [Leva13].  This work
   provided an alternative to RFC 5218 that had many points in common.
   The case study examined was that of Multipath TCP (MPTCP).  Various
   deployment challenges were observed.  First and foremost, increasing
   bandwidth within the network seems to decrease the attractiveness of
   MPTCP.  Second, the benefit/cost tradeoff by vendors was not
   considered attractive.  Third, not all parties may agree on the
   benefits.

   Solutions analysis suggested several approaches to improve
   deployment, including using open-source software, lobbying various
   implementers, deploying proxies, and completing implementations by
   parties that own both ends of a connection.

3.5.  Best Effort Service as a Deployment Success Factor

   When given the choice between vanilla and chocolate, why not choose
   both?  The workshop considered an approach that became a recurring
   theme throughout the workshop -- to not examine when it was necessary
   to make a choice between technologies, but rather to implement
   multiple mechanisms to achieve adoption [Welzl13].  The workshop
   discussed the case of Skype, where it will use the best available
   transport mechanism to improve communication between clients, rather
   than tie fate to any specific transport.  The argument goes that such
   an approach provides a means to introduce new transports such as
   SCTP.  This would be an adaptation of "Happy Eyeballs" [RFC6555].















Lear                          Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


4.  Innovative / Out-There Models

   There were several approaches presented that examined how we look at
   protocol adoption.

4.1.  On the Complexity of Designed Systems (and its effect on protocol
      deployment)

   The workshop reviewed a comparison between the hourglass model and
   what systems biologists might call the bow tie model [Meyer13].  The
   crux of this comparison is that both rely on certain building blocks
   to accomplish a certain end.  In the case of our hourglass model, IP
   sits notably in the center, whereas in the case of systems biology,
   adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is the means by which all organisms
   convert nutrients to usable energy, and thus resides centrally within
   the biological system.

   The workshop also examined the notion of "robust yet fragile", which
   examines the balance between the cost of implementing robust systems
   versus their value.  That is, highly efficient systems can prove
   fragile in the face of failure or may prove hard to evolve.

   The key question asked during this presentation was how we could
   apply what has been learned in systems biology or what do the
   findings reduce to for engineers?  The answer was that more work is
   needed.  The discussion highlighted the complexity of the Internet in
   terms of predicting network behavior.  As such, one promising area to
   examine may be that of network management.

4.2.  Managing Diversity to Manage Technological Transition

   The workshop considered the difference between planned versus
   unplanned technology transitions [Kohno13].  They examined several
   transitions at the link, IP, and application layers in Japan.  One
   key claim in the study is that there is a phase difference in the
   diversity trend between each layer.  The statistics presented show
   that indeed HTTP is the predominant substrate for other applications.
   Another point made was that "natural selection" is a strong means to
   determine technology.

   Along these lines, there were two papers submitted that examined the
   formation and changes to the hourglass in the context of evolutionary
   economics.  Unfortunately, the presenter was unable to attend due to
   illness.  The work was discussed at the workshop, and there were
   different points of view as to the approach.






Lear                          Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


4.3.  On Economic Models of Network Technology Adoption, Design, and
      Viability

   The workshop considered how network protocol capabilities enable
   certain sorts of services that are beneficial to consumers and
   service providers.  This model looks at smart data pricing (SDP) in
   which some behavior is desired and rewarded through a pricing model
   [Sen13].  The example given was use of time-dependent pricing (TDP)
   and demonstrated how a service provider was able to load shift
   traffic to off-peak periods.  Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
   and RADIUS were used by the project alongside a simple GUI.  This
   sort of work may prove useful to service providers as caching models
   evolve over time.  The question within the room was how will protocol
   developers consider these sorts of requirements.

5.  Making Standards Better

   There were several papers that focused on how standards are produced.

5.1.  Standards: a love/hate relationship with patents

   One of the biggest barriers to deployment is that of the unseen
   patent by the non-practicing entity (NPE) [Lear13].  While this
   problem is relatively well understood by the industry, the discussion
   looked at patents as a means to improve interoperability.  Those who
   hold patents have the ability to license them in such a way that a
   single approach towards standardization is the result (e.g., they get
   to decide the venue for their work).

5.2.  Bridge Networking Research and Internet Standardization: Case
      Study on Mobile Traffic Offloading and IPv6 Transition
      Technologies

   There was a presentation and discussion about the gap between the
   research community and standards organizations.  Two cases were
   examined: mobile offloading and IPv6 transition technologies
   [Ding13].  In the case of mobile offloading, a mechanism was examined
   that required understanding of both 3GPP (Third Generation
   Partnership Project) and IETF standards.  Resistance in both
   organizations was encountered.  In the 3GPP, the problem was that the
   organization already had an offloading model in play.  In the IETF,
   the problem was a lack of understanding of the interdisciplinary
   space.  The researchers noted that in the case of the IETF, they may
   have taken the wrong tack by having jumped into the solution without
   having fully explained the problem they were trying to solve.  In the
   case of IPv6 transition technologies, researchers encountered a
   crowded field and not much appetite for new transition technologies.




Lear                          Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


   The workshop discussed whether the standards arena is the best venue
   or measurement of success for researchers.  The IRTF is meant to
   bridge academic research and the IETF.  As we will discuss below,
   several avenues for continued dialog are contemplated.

5.3.  An Internet Architecture for the Challenged

   The workshop engaged in a very provocative discussion about whether
   the existing Internet architecture serves the broadest set of needs.
   Three specific aspects were examined: geographic, technical, and
   socioeconomic.  Researchers presented an alternative hourglass or
   protocol architecture known as Lowest Common Denominator Networking
   (LCDNet) that re-examines some of the base assumptions of the
   existing architecture, including its "always on" nature
   [Sathiaseelan13].

   The workshop questioned many of the baseline assumptions of the
   researchers.  In part, this may have been due to constrained
   discussion time on the topic, where a fuller explanation was
   warranted.

6.  Other Challenges and Approaches

   The workshop held a number of other discussions about different
   approaches to technology adoption.  We should highlight that a number
   of papers were submitted to the workshop on routing security, two of
   which were not possible to present.

6.1.  Resilience of the commons: routing security

   The workshop discussed a presentation on the tragedy of the commons
   in the context of global inter-domain routing [Robachevsky13].  The
   "Internet Commons" is a collection of networks that we depend on but
   do not control.  The main threat to the commons in the context of BGP
   is routing pollution, or unwanted or unnecessary routing entries.
   The Internet Society has been working with service providers to
   improve resiliency by driving a common understanding of both problem
   and solution space and by developing a shared view with regard to
   risk and benefits, with the idea being that there would be those who
   would engage in reciprocal cooperation with the hopes that others
   would do similarly in order to break the tragedy.

   What was notable in discussion was that there was no magic bullet to
   addressing the resiliency issue, and that this was a matter of
   clearly identifying the key players and convincing them that their
   incentives were aligned.  It also involved developing approaches to
   measure resiliency.




Lear                          Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


6.2.  Getting to the Next Version of TLS

   Originally, the workshop had planned to look at the question of
   whether the IETF could mandate stronger security.  This evolved into
   a discussion about getting to the next version of Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) and what challenges lie ahead.  It was pointed out
   that there were still many old versions of TLS in existence today,
   due to many old implementations.  In particular, it was pointed out
   that a substantial amount of traffic is still encrypted using Triple
   DES.

   One concern about the next generation is that perfect could become
   the enemy of good.  Another point that was made was that perhaps a
   testing platform might help interoperability.  Finally, there was
   some discussion about how new versions of TLS get promoted.

7.  Outcomes

   This wide-ranging workshop discussed many aspects that go to the
   success or failure of the work of the IETF.  While there is no single
   silver bullet that we can point to for making a protocol successful,
   the workshop did discuss a number of outcomes and potential next
   steps.

7.1.  Work for the IAB and the IETF

   The IAB's role in working group formation consists of providing
   guidance to the IESG on which Birds of a Feather sessions should be
   held, reviewing proposed working group charters, and shepherding some
   work so that it can reach a suitable stage for standardization.  In
   each of these stages, the IAB has an opportunity to apply the lessons
   of RFC 5218, as well as other work such as the notion of bundling
   choices, when members give advice.

   In addition to working group creation, the IAB has an opportunity to
   track and present protocol success stories, either through wikis or
   through discussion at plenary sessions.  For instance, at the time of
   writing, there is much interest in Bitcoin, its success, and what
   parallels and lessons can be drawn.  Specifically, it would be useful
   to track examples of first-mover advantages.

   Finally, one area that the IETF may wish to consider, relating
   specifically to DNSSEC, as raised by our speakers was standardization
   of the provisioning interface of DNSSEC (DS keys) between parent and
   child zone.  Contributions in this area would be welcome.






Lear                          Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


7.2.  Potential for the Internet Research Task Force

   There are at least two possible activities that the IRTF might wish
   to consider.  The first would be a research group that considers
   protocol alternatives and recommendations that might be useful in
   areas where environments are constrained, due to bandwidth or other
   resources.  Such a group has already been proposed, in fact.

   The second possibility is a more general group that focuses on
   economic considerations relating to Internet protocol design.  In
   particular, there were a number of areas that were presented to the
   working group that deserve further investigation and could use
   collaboration between researchers, engineers, and operators.  Two
   examples are work on bundling and systems biology.

7.3.  Opportunities for Others

   Incentive models often involve many different players.  As we
   considered work in the workshop, our partners such as ICANN and the
   Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) can continue to play a role in
   encouraging deployment of protocols through their policies.  Their
   members can also participate in any activity of the IRTF that is
   related to this work.

   Specifically, RIRs have a specific role to play in encouraging
   security of the routing system, and ICANN has a specific role to play
   in securing the domain name service.

   The suggestion was made that the IETF working groups could leverage
   graduate students in many universities around the world in helping
   review documents (Internet-Drafts, RFCs, etc.).  This would serve as
   a source of education in real-world processes to students and would
   engage the research community in IETF processes more thoroughly; it
   would also provide a scale-out resource for handling the IETF review
   workload.  Several attendees who have such students were prepared to
   try this out.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not discuss a protocol.  Security for the workshop
   itself was excellent.










Lear                          Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


9.  Acknowledgments

   The IAB would like to thank the program committee, who consisted of
   Roch Guerin, Constantine Dovrolis, Hannes Tschofenig, Joel Halpern,
   Eliot Lear, and Richard Clayton, as well as Bernard Aboba and Dave
   Thaler.  Their earlier work provided a strong basis for this
   workshop.

   A special debt of gratitude is owed to our hosts, Ross Anderson and
   Richard Clayton, for arranging an excellent venue for our
   discussions.

10.  Attendees

   The following people attended the ITAT workshop:

   Aaron Yi Ding, Adrian Farrel, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew Sullivan,
   Arjuna Sathiaseelan, Bjoern Zeeb, Dave Meyer, Dave Thaler, Dongting
   Yu, Eliot Lear, Elwyn Davies, Erik Nordmark, Hannes Tschofenig, Joel
   Halpern, Jon Crowcroft, Lars Eggert, Martin Stiemerling, Michael
   Welzl, Michiel Leenaars, Miya Kohno, Rainer Boehme, Richard Clayton,
   Roch Guerin, Ross Anderson, Russ Housley, Sam Smith, Sean Turner,
   Soumya Sen, Spencer Dawkins, Steven Weber, Tapio Levae, Toby
   Moncaster, Tony Finch

11.  Informative References

   [Boehme13] Boehme, R., "Internet Protocol Adoption: Learning from
              Bitcoin", December 2013, <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/
              IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_17.pdf>.

   [Ding13]   Yi Ding, A., Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Kojo, M.,
              Tarkoma, S., and J. Crowcroft, "Bridge Networking Research
              and Internet Standardization: Case Study on Mobile Traffic
              Offloading and IPv6 Transition Technologies", December
              2013, <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_6.pdf>.

   [Kohno13]  Kohno, M., Asaba, T., and F. Baker, "Managing Diversity to
              Manage Technological Transition", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_7.pdf>.

   [Lear13]   Lear, E. and D. Mohlenhoff, "Standards: a love/hate
              relationship with patents", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_11.docx>.




Lear                          Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


   [Leva13]   Leva, T. and H. Soumi, "Framework for analyzing
              feasibility of Internet protocols", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_4.pdf>.

   [Lowinder13]
              Eklund Lowinder, A. and P. Wallstrom, "Long term strategy
              for a successful deployment of DNSSEC - on all levels",
              December 2013, <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/
              IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_5.docx>.

   [Meyer13]  Meyer, D., "On the Complexity of Engineered Systems (and
              its effect on protocol deployment)", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_9.pdf>.

   [RFC2480]  Freed, N., "Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts", RFC
              2480, January 1999.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
              4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5218]  Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes For a Successful
              Protocol?", RFC 5218, July 2008.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012.

   [RFC6698]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
              of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012.

   [Robachevsky13]
              Robachevsky, A., "Resilience of the commons: routing
              security", December 2013, <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/
              IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_12.pdf>.

   [Sathiaseelan13]
              Sathiaseelan, A., Trossen, D., Komnios, I., Ott, J., and
              J. Crowcroft, "An Internet Architecture for the
              Challenged", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_3.pdf>.




Lear                          Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 7305                       ITAT Report                     July 2014


   [Sen13]    Sen, S., "On Economic Models of Network Technology
              Adoption, Design, and Viability", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_101.pdf>.

   [Weber13]  Weber, S., Guerin, R., and J. Oliveira, "When can bundling
              help adoption of network technologies or services?",
              December 2013, <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/
              IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_2.pdf>.

   [Welzl13]  Welzl, M., "The "best effort" service as a deployment
              success factor", December 2013,
              <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/
              itat-2013_submission_8.pdf>.

Author's Address

   Eliot Lear (editor)
   Richtistrasse 7
   Wallisellen, ZH  CH-8304
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 878 9200
   EMail: lear@cisco.com



























Lear                          Informational                    [Page 17]

