Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Short version:   The two differing understandings of "incrementally
                 deployable" may result from asking two different
                 questions.


Hi Xiaohu,

You wrote:

> I definitely agree to your opinion. We should not judge whether an 
> approach supports incremental deployment just by whether host change 
> is required.

Yes, the examples I gave in: 

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00826.html

include one which is a host upgrade, which I consider "incrementally
deployable".

> Nowadays, host upgrade is not such a hard work. 

This may be true, over a few years, for some hosts - perhaps even many
desktop and server machines.  If there are direct benefits for the
host's user of doing so, without relying on the host at the other end of
the communication to be upgraded too, then I would say it is
"incrementally deployable".

Here are the two questions which I think give rise to the different
understandings:

I think Tony asks something like:

  Can the technology be introduced one host at a time, one
  network at at time etc. without disrupting other networks
  - and produce some benefits?

Clearly, a technology which needs to be introduced everywhere before it
produces any benefits is not incrementally deployable.

However, the answer to this question is probably "yes" for almost any
technology.

The question I ask, and which I thought everyone else asks, is:

  Does the technology produce substantial benefits for whoever 
  installs it without relying on how many other people install it?

My examples in the above-linked message illustrate this distinction.

  - Robin


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg