Internet Architecture Board (IAB) E. Lear, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7305 July 2014
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
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)
IAB互联网技术采用和转型研讨会（ITAT）的报告
Abstract
摘要
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.
本文件概述了互联网体系结构委员会（IAB）举办的关于互联网技术采用和过渡（ITAT）的研讨会。研讨会由剑桥大学主办，12月4日在英国剑桥举行，2013人中有第五人参加。讲习班的目标是通过审查各种经济模型，促进互联网协议的采用，特别强调沙漏的腰部（例如，协议栈的中部）。本报告总结了贡献和讨论。由于主题广泛，IETF参与者目前没有单一的建议。相反，在早期研究的经典意义上，研讨会指出了值得进一步探索的领域。
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.
请注意，本文件是研讨会会议记录的报告。本报告中记录的观点和立场是研讨会参与者的观点和立场，不一定反映IAB的观点和立场。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
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.
本文件是互联网体系结构委员会（IAB）的产品，代表IAB认为有价值提供永久记录的信息。它代表了互联网体系结构委员会（IAB）的共识。IAB批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
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.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7305.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2014 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Table of Contents
目录
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
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
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.
互联网是一个复杂的生态系统，涵盖了社会的各个方面。它的核心是一个沙漏形状的协议栈，IP位于其中心。最近的研究指出了这种设计成功的可能解释，以及在尝试发展或改变其中间部分时出现的重大挑战，例如，IPv6遇到的困难部分地证明了这一点。该研讨会有许多其他重要的例子要考虑，包括下一代HTTP和实时Web浏览器通信（WebRTC）。许多（如果不是所有的话）协议的最终成功将在很大程度上取决于我们对哪些功能和设计原则有助于持久价值的理解，也取决于部署策略如何成功地释放该价值以促进协议的采用。后者尤其重要，因为大多数（如果不是所有的话）互联网协议都表现出强大的外部性，这给采用造成了巨大的障碍，特别是在有一个公认的现任者在场的情况下。也就是说，超出端点控制范围的因素（如中间盒）可能会限制部署，有时是通过设计。
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.
互联网体系结构委员会（IAB）举办临时研讨会，旨在考虑互联网的长期问题和策略，并提出未来的互联网架构方向。IAB的这一长期规划职能是对互联网工程任务组（IETF）工作组在互联网工程指导小组（IESG）和地区理事会领导下进行的工程工作的补充。
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.
考虑到[RFC5218]关于协议成功的原因，本研讨会试图探索协议设计和部署的复杂交互如何影响其成功。因此，研讨会的目标之一是鼓励讨论，以了解是什么使协议设计不仅在满足初始设计目标方面成功，而且更重要的是在这些目标和可用技术发生变化时，协议设计能够不断发展。另一个同样重要的目标是制定协议部署战略，确保新功能能够迅速获得足够的立足点，最终实现广泛采用。这些战略必须同时考虑到业务因素和经济因素。
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.
该研讨会的参与者包括操作员、计算机科学和经济学领域的研究人员以及工程师。捐款范围广泛。因此，这份报告很少对IETF提出建议。
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.
本报告记录了参与者的讨论。最后，讲习班参与者审查了可能的后续项目。报告中的每一点都将强调这些内容，并在最后给出总结。
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.
第2节回顾了动机和现有工作，第3节讨论了协议采用的经济性。第4节介绍了协议采用的创新模型。第5节深入研究了最近的标准问题和一些成功案例。第6节探讨了成功因素的不同观点。最后，第7节探讨了可能的后续步骤。
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.
我们的研讨会以一个问题的介绍开始：互联网沙漏的颈部是否因业务而关闭？有许多实例进展缓慢，其中三个最大的实例是IPv6[RFC2480]、流控制传输协议（SCTP）[RFC4960]和DNS安全（DNSSEC）[RFC4034]。DNSSEC的影响特别令人感兴趣，因为它被用于交付其他服务，例如基于DNS的命名实体身份验证（DANE）[RFC6698]，并且它可以通过DNS用于应用程序发现服务（特别是当安全属性是该发现的一部分时）。因此，玻璃颈部的减速会对靠近边缘的部分产生影响。
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.
即使将沙漏的经典颈部视为IP层和传输层，也有人建议沙漏可以延伸到应用层的高度。
______________________
\ /
\ Applications /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\__________/
| HTTP(s)|
|________|
/ \
/ TCP/IP \
/______________\
/ MPLS/ \
/ Framing \
/____________________\
/ Physical \
/________________________\
______________________
\ /
\ Applications /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\__________/
| HTTP(s)|
|________|
/ \
/ TCP/IP \
/______________\
/ MPLS/ \
/ Framing \
/____________________\
/ Physical \
/________________________\
HTTP(s) as the new neck?
HTTP（s）作为新的瓶颈？
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.
这一观点被以下论点所反驳：协议确实在继续发展，应用程序空间中的SMTP和IMAP等协议也在继续发展，传输层也在不断发展。
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.
研讨会接着回顾了RFC 5218，讨论了协议成功因素。这项工作在IETF 70全体会议上提出，是这项正在进行的工作的基础。讨论有两个明确的结果。第一个是，互联网架构委员会应该在IETF评估羽毛（BOF）会议提案的上下文中审查和考虑该文件，以便仔细设计任何工作组提案，以解决特定的设计空间并提供正的净价值。另一个方面是继续跟踪特定价值作品的成功、疯狂成功或失败。在最后一点上，失败仍然难以判断，特别是在沙漏的颈部。
Several papers were presented that looked at economic aspects of protocol adoption.
提出了几篇关于议定书采用的经济方面的论文。
3.1. When can bundling help adoption of network technologies or services?
3.1. 捆绑何时能帮助采用网络技术或服务？
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.
捆绑的经济性是一个长期研究的领域，但并不适用于协议。它与IETF相关，与两个关键概念有关：分层和“强制实施”。目前的两个例子包括DNSSEC上的DANE和SCTP上的WebRTC。研讨会回顾了一个模型[Weber13]，该模型探讨了两种技术的捆绑如何增加或减少一种或两种技术的采用。这将取决于许多因素，包括与每项技术相关的成本、收益和外部性。（简单地说，外部性是一组当事人做出的影响或使用决定，对没有选择权或利益未被考虑的其他人产生积极或消极影响。）当单个功能本身不能提供足够的临界质量来推动进一步采用时，功能捆绑可能会提供积极的价值。具体地说，当一种技术在关键部署量存在之前无法提供正价值，并且第二种技术具有较低的采用成本和即时价值，从而推动初始采用，直到有足够的用户群存在以允许关键质量足以使第一种技术获得正价值时，捆绑可以起到帮助作用。一个问题是当一种技术依赖于另一种技术时会发生什么。这与IETF中的“强制实施”讨论直接相关。这是后续工作的问题。IETF参与者可以为研究人员提供轶事经验，以帮助改进该领域的模型。
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:
研讨会考虑了比特币[Boehme13]背景下协议成功因素的检查。在这里，成功的障碍很多，包括负面新闻、法律不确定性、小故障和违规、先前失败的尝试和投机性攻击。到目前为止，由于以下几个关键因素，比特币已经克服了这些障碍：
o First, there is a built-in reward system for early adopters. Participants are monetarily rewarded at an exponentially declining rate.
o 首先，对早期采用者有一个内置的奖励系统。参与者获得的金钱回报呈指数级下降。
o There exist exchanges or conversion mechanisms to directly convert Bitcoin to other currencies.
o 存在直接将比特币转换为其他货币的交换或转换机制。
o Finally, there is some store of value in the currency itself, e.g., people find intrinsic value in it.
o 最后，货币本身有一些价值储存，例如，人们在其中发现内在价值。
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".
这些因素中的前两个可以转移到其他方法。协议成功的一个关键因素是参与者的直接利益。协议成功的另一个关键因素是与其他系统接口以实现互利的能力。在比特币的背景下，必须有一种方法将比特币兑换成其他货币。互联网电子邮件系统具有更简单的适应机制，允许与非互联网电子邮件系统进行交换；这促进了它的成功。另一种更简单的方法是“知识产权高于一切”。
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.
本演示的一个关键信息是，如果协议对其他系统施加了外部性或成本，请找到一种方法，为其他参与者建立实施激励。碰巧，有一个与IETF直接相关的有限示例。
3.3. Long term strategy for a successful deployment of DNSSEC - on all levels
3.3. 在各级成功部署DNSSEC的长期战略
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.
研讨会回顾了瑞典.SE注册中心为改进DNSSEC[Lowinder13]的部署所采取的方法。SE大约有150万个域。非法移民(<https://www.iis.se>)管理ccTLD（国家代码顶级域）。他们决定鼓励在.SE中部署DNSSEC。他们首先了解整个生态系统是什么样子，他们的利益相关者是谁，以及部署的财务、法律和技术方面。当他们开始他们的推出，他们收取额外的DNSSEC。正如他们所说，这并没有起到很好的作用。
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.
他们继续资助OpenDNSSEC的开发，以消除在终端站点部署的技术障碍，并指出该领域缺乏工具。即使有了这种开发，还需要更多的工具，因为他们指出需要在签名区和注册器之间使用API。
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.
为了进一步鼓励部署，瑞典政府向社区提供财政奖励，以确保其域名得到签署。SE进一步鼓励注册商看到他们的域名已签署。总之，.SE检查了所有参与者，并为每个参与者提供了激励。
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
研讨会讨论了该模型是否可应用于其他领域。SE能够有效地补贴DNS部署，因为他们能够设定价格。这可能是
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.
适用于某些其他顶级领域，但有人指出，其他领域的利润不允许在此时传递成本降低。
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.
研讨会的目标之一是提供确定IETF中的工作何时可能导致采用的方法。研讨会考虑了一种交互式方法，该方法结合了价值网分析、部署环境分析和技术架构分析，从而得出可行性和解决方案分析[13]。这项工作提供了RFC 5218的替代方案，该方案有许多共同点。研究的案例是多路径TCP（MPTCP）。观察到各种部署挑战。首先也是最重要的是，网络带宽的增加似乎降低了MPTCP的吸引力。其次，供应商的利益/成本权衡被认为不具吸引力。第三，并非所有各方都可以就利益达成一致。
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.
解决方案分析提出了几种改进部署的方法，包括使用开源软件、游说各种实现者、部署代理以及由拥有连接两端的各方完成实现。
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].
如果可以选择香草和巧克力，为什么不同时选择两者呢？研讨会考虑了一种在整个研讨会中反复出现的主题——不检查何时有必要在技术之间做出选择，而是实施多种机制以实现采用[Welzl13]。研讨会讨论了Skype的情况，Skype将使用可用的最佳传输机制来改进客户端之间的通信，而不是将命运与任何特定的传输绑定。该观点认为，这种方法提供了一种引入新传输（如SCTP）的方法。这将是对“快乐眼球”的改编[RFC6555]。
There were several approaches presented that examined how we look at protocol adoption.
有几种方法研究了我们如何看待协议采用。
4.1. On the Complexity of Designed Systems (and its effect on protocol deployment)
4.1. 设计系统的复杂性（及其对协议部署的影响）
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.
研讨会回顾了沙漏模型与系统生物学家可能称之为蝴蝶结模型的比较[Meyer13]。这种比较的关键是，两者都依赖于某些构建块来实现特定的目的。在我们的沙漏模型中，IP明显处于中心位置，而在系统生物学中，三磷酸腺苷（ATP）是所有生物体将营养转化为可用能量的手段，因此位于生物系统的中心。
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.
讲习班还审查了“稳健但脆弱”的概念，该概念审查了实施稳健系统的成本与其价值之间的平衡。也就是说，高效的系统在面对失败时可能会变得脆弱，或者很难进化。
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.
本次演讲中提出的关键问题是，我们如何应用在系统生物学中学到的知识，或者这些发现对工程师有什么帮助？答案是需要做更多的工作。讨论强调了互联网在预测网络行为方面的复杂性。因此，一个有希望的领域可能是网络管理。
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.
研讨会考虑了计划内和计划外技术转换之间的差异[Kohno13]。他们研究了日本链路层、IP层和应用层的几个转换。研究中的一个关键主张是，各层之间的多样性趋势存在相位差异。所提供的统计数据表明，HTTP确实是其他应用程序的主要基础。另一点是，“自然选择”是决定技术的有力手段。
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.
沿着这些思路，有两篇论文在进化经济学的背景下研究了沙漏的形成和变化。不幸的是，演讲者因病未能出席。讲习班上讨论了这项工作，对方法有不同的看法。
4.3. On Economic Models of Network Technology Adoption, Design, and Viability
4.3. 网络技术采用、设计和可行性的经济模型
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.
研讨会讨论了网络协议功能如何实现对消费者和服务提供商有益的特定种类的服务。该模型着眼于智能数据定价（SDP），其中通过定价模型期望并奖励某些行为[Sen13]。给出的示例是使用时间相关定价（TDP），并演示了服务提供商如何将流量转移到非高峰时段。项目使用了显式拥塞通知（ECN）和RADIUS以及一个简单的GUI。随着缓存模型的不断发展，这类工作可能对服务提供商很有用。房间内的问题是协议开发者将如何考虑这些需求。
There were several papers that focused on how standards are produced.
有几篇论文关注标准是如何产生的。
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).
部署的最大障碍之一是非执业实体（NPE）的不可见专利[13]。虽然业界对这个问题比较了解，但讨论将专利视为提高互操作性的一种手段。持有专利的人有能力以这样一种方式对其进行许可，即采用单一的标准化方法（例如，他们可以决定工作地点）。
5.2. Bridge Networking Research and Internet Standardization: Case Study on Mobile Traffic Offloading and IPv6 Transition Technologies
5.2. 网桥网络研究与互联网标准化：移动流量卸载和IPv6过渡技术案例研究
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.
对研究界和标准组织之间的差距进行了介绍和讨论。研究了两个案例：移动卸载和IPv6转换技术[13]。在移动卸载的情况下，研究了一种需要了解3GPP（第三代合作伙伴项目）和IETF标准的机制。两个组织都遇到了阻力。在3GPP中，问题在于该组织已经有了一种卸载模式。在IETF中，问题在于缺乏对跨学科空间的理解。研究人员指出，在IETF的案例中，他们可能采取了错误的策略，在没有充分解释他们试图解决的问题的情况下跳入解决方案。在IPv6过渡技术方面，研究人员遇到了一个拥挤的领域，对新的过渡技术没有太大兴趣。
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.
研讨会讨论了标准竞技场是否是研究人员成功的最佳场所或衡量标准。IRTF旨在连接学术研究和IETF。正如我们将在下面讨论的那样，我们考虑了几种继续对话的途径。
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].
研讨会就现有的互联网架构是否能满足最广泛的需求展开了极具挑衅性的讨论。研究了三个具体方面：地理、技术和社会经济。研究人员提出了另一种称为最低公分母网络（LCDNet）的沙漏或协议架构，该架构重新审视了现有架构的一些基本假设，包括其“始终开启”的性质[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.
研讨会对研究人员的许多基线假设提出了质疑。在某种程度上，这可能是因为关于这个主题的讨论时间有限，需要更充分的解释。
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.
讲习班还就采用技术的不同方法进行了一些其他讨论。我们应该强调，向路由安全研讨会提交了一些文件，其中两份无法提交。
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.
研讨会讨论了在全球域间路由[Robachevsky13]背景下关于公共空间悲剧的演讲。“互联网共享空间”是我们依赖但不控制的网络集合。在BGP环境下，对公共空间的主要威胁是路由污染，或不必要或不必要的路由条目。互联网协会一直在与服务提供商合作，通过推动对问题和解决方案空间的共同理解，以及就风险和收益形成共识，提高恢复力，他们的想法是，有些人会进行互惠合作，希望其他人也会这样做，以打破悲剧。
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.
讨论中值得注意的是，没有解决弹性问题的灵丹妙药，这是一个明确确定关键参与者并让他们相信他们的激励是一致的问题。它还涉及开发衡量弹性的方法。
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.
最初，研讨会计划研究IETF是否可以强制实施更高安全性的问题。这就演变成了一场关于下一版本传输层安全性（TLS）以及未来挑战的讨论。有人指出，由于许多旧的实现，现在仍然存在许多旧版本的TLS。特别是，有人指出，大量的通信量仍然使用三重DES加密。
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.
对下一代的一个担忧是，完美可能成为好的敌人。另外一点是，也许测试平台可以帮助互操作性。最后，讨论了TLS的新版本是如何得到推广的。
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.
这次范围广泛的研讨会讨论了影响IETF工作成败的许多方面。虽然没有一个银弹，我们可以指出一个协议的成功，研讨会确实讨论了一些成果和潜在的后续步骤。
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.
IAB在工作组组建中的作用包括为IESG提供指导，指导其应举行哪些同类鸟类会议，审查拟议的工作组章程，并指导一些工作，使其达到适当的标准化阶段。在每个阶段，IAB都有机会在成员提供建议时应用RFC 5218的经验教训以及其他工作，如捆绑选择的概念。
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.
除了创建工作组外，IAB还有机会通过Wiki或全体会议上的讨论来跟踪和展示协议成功案例。例如，在撰写本文时，人们对比特币、比特币的成功以及可以借鉴的相似之处和教训都很感兴趣。具体而言，跟踪先行者优势的例子将是有用的。
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.
最后，IETF可能希望考虑的一个领域，具体涉及DNSSEC，如我们的发言者提出的，是在父区域和子区域之间的DNSSEC（DS密钥）的提供接口的标准化。欢迎在这方面作出贡献。
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.
至少有两种可能的活动是IRTF希望考虑的。第一个将是一个研究小组，该小组考虑在由于带宽或其他资源而限制环境的领域可能有用的协议替代方案和建议。事实上，已经有人提议成立这样一个小组。
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.
第二种可能性是一个更一般的群体，关注与互联网协议设计相关的经济考虑。特别是，提交给工作组的一些领域值得进一步调查，可以利用研究人员、工程师和操作员之间的协作。两个例子是关于捆绑和系统生物学的工作。
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.
激励模式通常涉及许多不同的参与者。在我们审议研讨会工作时，ICANN和区域互联网注册中心（RIR）等合作伙伴可以继续发挥作用，通过其政策鼓励协议的部署。他们的成员也可以参加与这项工作有关的IRTF的任何活动。
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.
具体而言，RIR在鼓励路由系统的安全性方面可以发挥特定的作用，而ICANN在保护域名服务方面可以发挥特定的作用。
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.
有人建议，IETF工作组可以利用世界各地许多大学的研究生帮助审查文件（互联网草稿、RFC等）。这将成为学生在现实世界过程中的教育来源，并将使研究界更彻底地参与IETF过程；它还将为处理IETF审查工作量提供扩展资源。一些有这样学生的与会者准备尝试一下。
This document does not discuss a protocol. Security for the workshop itself was excellent.
本文件不讨论协议。研讨会本身的安全性非常好。
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.
IAB要感谢项目委员会，该委员会由罗奇·盖林、康斯坦丁·多夫罗利斯、汉内斯·茨霍芬尼、乔尔·哈尔伯恩、艾略特·李尔和理查德·克莱顿以及伯纳德·阿博巴和戴夫·泰勒组成。他们早期的工作为这次研讨会奠定了坚实的基础。
A special debt of gratitude is owed to our hosts, Ross Anderson and Richard Clayton, for arranging an excellent venue for our discussions.
我们特别感谢主持人罗斯·安德森和理查德·克莱顿为我们安排了一个极好的讨论场所。
The following people attended the ITAT workshop:
下列人员参加了ITAT研讨会：
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
亚伦·伊丁、阿德里安·法雷尔、安德烈·罗巴切夫斯基、安德鲁·沙利文、阿朱娜·萨蒂亚西兰、比约恩·泽布、戴夫·迈耶、戴夫·泰勒、余洞庭、艾略特·李尔、艾尔温·戴维斯、埃里克·诺德马克、汉内斯·茨霍芬尼、乔尔·哈尔彭、乔恩·克劳克罗夫特、拉尔斯·艾格特、马丁·斯蒂梅林、迈克尔·韦尔茨、米切尔·里纳尔、米娅·科诺、雷纳·鲍姆、理查德·克莱顿、罗奇·盖林、，罗斯·安德森、罗斯·霍斯利、山姆·史密斯、肖恩·特纳、苏米娅·森、斯宾塞·道金斯、史蒂文·韦伯、塔皮奥·莱维、托比·蒙卡斯特、托尼·芬奇
[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>.
[Boehme13]Boehme，R.，“互联网协议采用：从比特币学习”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/ IAB上传/2013/06/itat-2013\u提交文件\u 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>.
[Ding13]Yi Ding，A.，Korhonen，J.，Savolainen，T.，Kojo，M.，Tarkoma，S.，和J.Crowcroft，“桥梁网络研究和互联网标准化：移动流量卸载和IPv6过渡技术的案例研究”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 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>.
[Kohno13]Kohno，M.，Asaba，T.，和F.Baker，“管理多样性以管理技术转型”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 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>.
[Lear13]Lear，E.和D.Mohlenhoff，“标准：与专利的爱/恨关系”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 11.docx>。
[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>.
[Leva 13]Leva，T.和H.Soumi，“互联网协议可行性分析框架”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 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>.
[Lowinder 13]Eklund Lowinder，A.和P.Wallstrom，“成功部署DNSSEC的长期战略——各级”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/ IAB上传/2013/06/itat-2013\u提交文件\u 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>.
[Meyer13]Meyer，D.，“工程系统的复杂性（及其对协议部署的影响）”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 9.pdf>。
[RFC2480] Freed, N., "Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts", RFC 2480, January 1999.
[RFC2480]弗里德，N.，“网关和MIME安全多部分”，RFC2480，1999年1月。
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4034]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全扩展的资源记录”，RFC 40342005年3月。
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC4960]Stewart，R.，“流控制传输协议”，RFC 49602007年9月。
[RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes For a Successful Protocol?", RFC 5218, July 2008.
[RFC5218]Thaler，D.和B.Aboba，“什么是成功的方案？”RFC 5218，2008年7月。
[RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012.
[RFC6555]Wing，D.和A.Yourtchenko，“快乐眼球：双堆栈主机的成功”，RFC 6555，2012年4月。
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012.
[RFC6698]Hoffman，P.和J.Schlyter，“基于DNS的命名实体认证（DANE）传输层安全（TLS）协议：TLSA”，RFC 6698，2012年8月。
[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>.
[Robachevsky13]Robachevsky，A.，“公共场所的弹性：路由安全”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/ IAB上传/2013/06/itat-2013\u提交\u 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>.
[Sathiaseelan13]Sathiaseelan，A.，Trossen，D.，Komnios，I.，Ott，J.，和J.Crowcroft，“面向挑战的互联网架构”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 3.pdf>。
[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>.
[Sen13]Sen，S.，“网络技术采用、设计和可行性的经济模型”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 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>.
[Weber13]Weber，S.，Guerin，R.，和J.Oliveira，“捆绑何时能帮助采用网络技术或服务？”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/ IAB上传/2013/06/itat-2013\u提交\u 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>.
[Welzl13]Welzl，M.，“作为部署成功因素的“尽力而为”服务”，2013年12月<http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/ itat-2013\u提交文件\u 8.pdf>。
Author's Address
作者地址
Eliot Lear (editor) Richtistrasse 7 Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304 Switzerland
Eliot Lear（编辑）Richtistrasse 7 Wallisellen，ZH CH-8304瑞士
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
EMail: lear@cisco.com
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
EMail: lear@cisco.com