Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)

[Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>]

On 09/21/2012 04:23 PM, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  I will talk to the other authors and see if they agree to use the Independent Stream submission.
>
>
> On your point:
>
> 	-- snip ---
> 	You can see also this, as the draft talks about the DECADE system which
> 	is not equal to the protocols.
>
> 	-- snip ---
>
> Please note that the nomenclature of "DECADE system" was specifically agreed in the WG to address the comments from the previous AD Dave Harrington.  Also the WG charter specifically prohibited us from selecting and specifying the details of the protocols.  Perhaps this is the cause of some of the confusion for you.

The term "DECADE system" is not necessarily causing confusion to me, it 
is the content of the requirements and the architecture draft. The term 
DECADE system is summarizing nicely what the documents try to achieve, 
although they should discuss requirements and an architecture for DECADE 
protocols.

I would appreciate a point to the conclusion that Dave's comments, or 
anything else. lead to "DECADE system".


Thanks,

   Martin

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Akbar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:09 AM
> To: Rahman, Akbar
> Cc: Konstantinos Pentikousis; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
>
> Hi Akbar,
>
> On 09/21/2012 03:21 PM, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
>> To All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I also want to make some points for the record:
>>
>> - As an author, I do NOT feel that I was part of any extensive discussions regarding potential shutting down of the DECADE WG and especially stopping the current active WG drafts (especially the Architecture I-D where I was an author).
>
> Talk to your chairs and consider that the requirements went from
> publication requested (i.e., on the way to the IESG) back to the WG
> (i.e., not on the way to the IESG).
>
> The same is true for the architecture draft.
>
>>
>> - We did have one lunch meeting in Vancouver with Martin and the chairs but that was publicly announced and open to all in the WG.  At that meeting, I recall Martin asking the attendees if there was industry interest for the DECADE work.  From what I recall, everyone there did express various levels of interest and support.  I didn’t hear anyone say that DECADE was a "wasted effort". So, frankly I was surprised and disappointed to see the WG shut down so suddenly.  If there really is no community support to continue with the activity, then so be it.  But you cannot conclude that there is not interest without first having an open discussion.
>
> To be honestly, but expressing interest and transforming interest to
> technical progress are two very distinct actions.
>
> I have seen a lot of 'expressing interest', but the technical progress
> was and is just not there.
>
> I also told at the lunch meeting in Vancouver that I want to see actions
> on the two main drafts in the WG, i.e., the requirements and the
> architecture. Yes there has been action, but the technical quality of
> the drafts is far from being useful for any further protocol development.
> See also my email with 2 examples on issues not addressed in neither the
> requirements nor the architecture draft.
>
>>
>> - In terms of the document quality.  The first draft of the Architecture I-D was in March 2011.  Since then we have gotten extensive comments from various excellent reviewers.  But as is often the case when you have multiple reviewers, you sometimes get conflicting directions.  Some reviewers wanted a high level abstract architecture that avoided all "implementation" details.  Other reviewers wanted a more detailed approach that got more into the details of the protocols and inner workings of the nodes.  I personally tried in a good faith effort to address all the comments and to try to strike a balance in addressing the philosophies of the different reviewers.
>
> The architecture drafts clearly fails to show the architecture of the
> DECADE protocols. See my AD review.
>
> You have indeed received extensive reviews, but it is up to date not
> clear if and how they were addressed.
>
> You can see also this, as the draft talks about the DECADE system which
> is not equal to the protocols.
>
>>
>> - I agree with Kostas that many documents in other WGs go through similar issues but at the end still managed to produce good work.
>
> Yes and no. There are examples in both directions, so it doesn't help
> here in this particular case.
>
>>
>> - To conclude, I devoted in good faith a fair amount of my energy to participate in advancing the topics in the WG since the first session back in Anaheim.  I defer to the higher powers to make the decision on closing the DECADE WG or not.  However, I clearly want to state that I think it was unfortunate to also suddenly terminate the DECADE Architecture I-D which was being extensively revised whenever we got reviewer comments.  I understand if people are saying that more work has to be done to get it to publication state.  But that does not warrant, in my opinion, to just shut down the work.  Honestly, if you use that criteria there would be many WG documents in other groups that should also be abruptly shut down.
>
> I wonder why there is so much care about other groups? This is about
> DECADE not any other arbitrary group somewhere else.
>
> With respect to the energy:
> If people still believe in DECADE, take the documents, address the
> reviews, get reviews and go for the Independent Stream submission with
> the RFC editor.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Martin
>
>>
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>>
>> Akbar
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Pentikousis
>> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 8:15 AM
>> To: Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
>>
>> Dear Martin, All,
>>
>>     |The DECADE working group has just been closed by your responsible Area
>>     |Director.
>>     |
>>     |This may come as a surprise to some in the WG
>>
>> Indeed, it has been a surprise.
>>
>>     | but it should not be a surprise for the working drafts authors
>>
>> That's fine, but I think some sort of announcement (and even better a discussion) should have been circulated prior to the IESG announcement. I'm not interested into _who_ should have done this. It's too late and, in the end, irrelevant at this stage. But there's an order of magnitude more people on this mailing list than in the author line of all drafts together. I would consider this a breakdown in communication between the inner- and outer-circle. This was far from what, in general, I would call a "graceful teardown".
>>
>>     | Both drafts do leave any number of key questions unanswered
>>
>> I do agree with most of your technical comments. I sent reviews on both documents earlier. That said, imo, this action was a bit abrupt. I do recall a few groups that were much later in their timelines than decade is now, and they still managed to do decent work after a (prolonged) slow start.
>>
>> In any case, I respect your decision, but I do not second it.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Kostas
>>
>>
>

-- 
[e-mail]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 283