Why didn't my (great!) protocol get adopted?

  • Mehdi Nikkhah
  • , Constantine Dovrolis
  • , Roch Guérin

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

What determines the eventual success of a protocol? Are certain features or properties more important? Do those vary according to a protocol's type? We explore these questions by applying data mining techniques to a rich repository of protocol specifications; IETF RFCs. While the investigation is still preliminary, some interesting findings have emerged. It confirms a number of intuitive results such as backward compatibility being key for protocol extensions and new versions, but not for new protocols. Similarly, the ability to improve performance is the single most important factor in the success of data plane protocols. Less intuitive findings, however, also emerge. Adding value to other protocols was the most significant factor in the success of new protocols, while extensions targeting security were the most likely to fail among new application and transport layer protocols. The paper offers a brief overview of our methodology and of the initial results it has afforded.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, HotNets-XIV 2015
PublisherAssociation for Computing Machinery, Inc
ISBN (Electronic)9781450340472
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 16 2015
Event14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, HotNets-XIV 2015 - Philadelphia, United States
Duration: Nov 16 2015Nov 17 2015

Publication series

NameProceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, HotNets-XIV 2015

Conference

Conference14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, HotNets-XIV 2015
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityPhiladelphia
Period11/16/1511/17/15

Keywords

  • Adoption
  • Machine learning
  • Protocols

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why didn't my (great!) protocol get adopted?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this