Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed

Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com> Fri, 28 September 2012 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <haibin.song@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700C921F8550; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.502, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fCkYTPCRXHhi; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E6E21F855A; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKC10816; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:39:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:38:19 +0100
Received: from SZXEML430-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.38) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:39:03 +0800
Received: from SZXEML534-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.70]) by szxeml430-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.38]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:38:58 +0800
From: Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
Thread-Index: AQHNmy4NeTF1FP7MtkORFrVdv9nRf5ee6t6w
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:38:58 +0000
Message-ID: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B366A5@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <50531AB3.6090601@neclab.eu> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B31E95@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <50583257.2080404@neclab.eu> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B33FA6@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120925072708.098586a0@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120925072708.098586a0@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.123]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" <appsdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
X-BeenThere: decade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To start the discussion on DECoupled Application Data Enroute, to discuss the in-network data storage for p2p applications and its access protocol" <decade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade>
List-Post: <mailto:decade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:39:07 -0000

Part of the resolution to comments (Carsten's and David Harrington's) were recorded in the document sent out by Akbar to the DECADE list several days ago. It might be easier to check with that one. It was for the discussion in June.

BR,
-Haibin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> S Moonesamy
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:57 PM
> To: decade@ietf.org
> Cc: appsdir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
> 
> At 23:52 21-09-2012, Songhaibin wrote:
> >I believe all those comments were addressed in the current draft, as
> >I joined the discussion with the authors to address the comments.
> >Their efforts should be respected. The authors and I would like Dave
> >and Carsten to check the draft with their comments, if they are
> >interested. While I admit answering in the mailing list is a main
> >method to resolve comments, but it is not the only method.
> 
> The Applications Directorate reviewers have volunteered their free
> time and effort to perform these reviews.  It is a disincentive to
> the reviewers if they have to track WG drafts to determine whether
> their comments have been addressed.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy