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

"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Mon, 24 September 2012 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.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 5044221F87C4 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1PvutHp3W34G for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FD021F87BF for <decade@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:55:42 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:55:42 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04B13A3F@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <50604EB1.8040404@neclab.eu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
Thread-Index: Ac2aTjfEIucSmqKrSbOaICrDiu4QFgAFTqHQ
References: <20120919230313.17329.44102.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><505AE794.8070304@neclab.eu> <8D38716F0C1A444BA0CD7E96454366C23A4DDEF6@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04B138D2@SAM.InterDigital.com> <505C74F3.7060002@neclab.eu> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04B139B7@SAM.InterDigital.com> <50604EB1.8040404@neclab.eu>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: "Martin Stiemerling" <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2012 14:55:42.0988 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB97ECC0:01CD9A64]
Cc: decade@ietf.org, Konstantinos Pentikousis <k.pentikousis@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
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: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:55:45 -0000

Dear Martin,


Just to gently remind you, the original point in this email trail was your contention that " .. but it should not be a surprise for the working drafts authors" that the WG was being closed.  To back-up this point you said:

> 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).


At least one of the chairs has written back and said he was very surprised as well that the WG was being closed.  And I pointed to the I-D state diagram to show that sending the I-D back to the authors with comments was part of the process and so could not have flagged to me that the WG was being closed.  So your argument does not hold water.

Now you bring up the RFC 2418 but that has nothing to with the original point.  In fact it certainly seems to be a surprise to everyone BUT you that the WG is being shut down (as evidenced by the avalanche of emails on the list).  So please just concede the point or just move on.



Respectfully yours,


Akbar


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu] 
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:15 AM
To: Rahman, Akbar
Cc: Konstantinos Pentikousis; decade@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)

Akbar,

On 09/22/2012 01:52 AM, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>
> Regarding your point below.  Unfortunately, I think that you are factually wrong.  Otherwise prove me wrong by showing me where on the I-D State Diagram http://datatracker.ietf.org/images/state_diagram.png it specifies that sending an I-D back to the authors with comments equals shutting down the WG and stopping a WG approved I-D.

You are referring the state diagram for Internet drafts and this state 
diagram does have no relationship to what happens with a WG.

However, for termination of WGs, please refer to RFC 2418, Section 4, 
copied here for your convenience:

4. Working Group Termination


    Working groups are typically chartered to accomplish a specific task
    or tasks.  After the tasks are complete, the group will be disbanded.
    However, if a WG produces a Proposed or Draft Standard, the WG will
    frequently become dormant rather than disband (i.e., the WG will no
    longer conduct formal activities, but the mailing list will remain
    available to review the work as it moves to Draft Standard and
    Standard status.)

    If, at some point, it becomes evident that a working group is unable
    to complete the work outlined in the charter, or if the assumptions
    which that work was based have been modified in discussion or by
    experience, the Area Director, in consultation with the working group
    can either:

    1. Recharter to refocus its tasks,
    2. Choose new Chair(s), or
    3. Disband.

    If the working group disagrees with the Area Director's choice, it
    may appeal to the IESG (see section 3.4).


and cite the email announcing the termination of the DECADE WG
"The DECADE WG has reached the point where it is evident that the
chartered work cannot be completed at a technical level suitable for the
coming steps of the protocol definition and also within an appropriate
time frame."

The drafts do not show that the WG is completing its technical work.

   Martin

>
>
>
> -- snip --
>
>> - 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.
>
>
> -- snip --
>
>
> BR
>
> /Akbar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:09 AM
> To: Rahman, Akbar
> Cc: Konstantinos Pentikousis; decade@ietf.org
> 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: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Pentikousis
>> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 8:15 AM
>> To: Martin Stiemerling; decade@ietf.org
>> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 
martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu

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