Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu> Mon, 24 September 2012 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
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 4C91121F852E; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bZitC73l53pt; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1066F21F84D7; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7267C101F20; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:26:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRCnb9-00kGc; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:26:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572DB101F1D; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:25:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:24:54 +0200
Message-ID: <50605139.4070907@neclab.eu>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:25:29 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com>
References: <50531AB3.6090601@neclab.eu> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B31E95@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <50583257.2080404@neclab.eu> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B33FA6@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B33FA6@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190]
Cc: "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@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: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:26:07 -0000
Dear Haibin, It is really strange that you copy private emails between you, Richard, and me to the general public. Despite the fact that I do not mind about this, it is really odd. I won't reply to this email. Martin On 09/22/2012 08:52 AM, Songhaibin wrote: > Dear Martin, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:36 PM >> To: Songhaibin >> Cc: Richard Woundy >> Subject: Re: DECADE WG to be closed >> >> Dear Haibin, >> >> On 09/17/2012 11:39 AM, Songhaibin wrote: >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> Hope everything goes well with you and thank you very much for your efforts >> to reviewing the drafts in detail and giving guidance. >>> >>> As I agree with most of your comments to the DECADE requirements draft, but >> I have to say IMO the architecture document is not that bad. This document gives >> a clear description of the DECADE server/client components and >> implementation/design principals which will be reflected in the protocols, IMO >> this is what an architecture document should do. >>> >>> I do not agree there is lack of technical substances to design a base protocol >> which can satisfy the transport and resource control requirements for content >> distribution applications. Some detailed design choices are still not very clear, and >> need efforts for them. >>> >>> And recently, the energy is growing, we recently received a lot of list discussion >> including comments from Kostas about the requirements and architecture and >> also a new individual draft for the service discovery was submitted. >> >> The energy has indeed grown in the WG since before the summer. But, I >> indicated in my email from mid of June that I have doubts on the >> technical quality of the DECADE drafts. These doubts have turned into >> certainty, i.e., see the my AD reviews of the requirements and the >> architecture. >> >> The technical quality of the drafts would be ok, if the WG would be at >> the beginning of the process of discussing and writing those drafts, but >> it is not acceptable at the end when the drafts are intended to become RFCs: >> The technical base is just to weak to continue from, even after spending >> time and effort of the WG participants for more than 2 years. > > The requirements document was accepted on Oct. 18, 2010, and the architecture draft was accepted on March 7, 2011. > >> >> Another important data point, as mentioned earlier: >> There has been public feedback from IETF community members, such as Dave >> Crocker and Carsten Bormann, which questioned the technical base of >> DECADE as a whole. This happened at the end of the 2011 and in the first >> quarter of 2012. > >> The was no and still has not been an adequate response from the DECADE >> WG to these reviews. For instance, the requirements did get a lot of >> feedback from Dave Crocker, but this feedback was never addressed in an >> email. I also have been unable to sort out what parts of the feedback >> has been addressed in the updated draft and how, and what parts have not >> been addressed. > > 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. > >> >> I have also received much stronger feedback about the DECADE WG in >> private emails to me. Again from long standing IETF community members >> that send me feedback arguing that DECADE is not having a technical base >> to build on top of. > > OK. But general rule for IETF is rough consensus, not private emails. Why not discuss their questions in the list? > >> >> You have asked in your other email to give more time to the WG until the >> next IETF meeting in November. This would be one possible way forward, >> but I do know about the past 6 months after the IETF meeting in Paris. >> Not a lot has happened during this period in order to improve the WG >> drafts, in the sense that there is a solid technical base where DECADE >> could continue to work from. > > I can answer If your question about the technical base can be more specific. > >> >> Even if you and the whole WG would start to work full-time on the >> drafts, it still would take longer than to the next IETF meeting to move >> the requirements and architecture forward. My gut guessing is that it >> will take at least until March 2013. > >> To give an example: >> It is completely unclear how the resources on a DECADE server are >> supposed to be managed and how this management is mapped to the protocol >> split of SDT, DRP, and other management protocols. >> Parts of it, such as setting the permissions of data objects clearly >> belongs to the DRP, and it is sort of stated in a vague way in the >> architecture, but it is not documented in a comprehensive way. Other >> parts, such as the accounting is probably not part of the the DRP nor >> SDT, but there is supposedly another interface that is needed for this. >> >> Has this been discussed at any point in the WG? > > I just read the email that Richard answered these questions with text from the current drafts. And I agree with his answers. > > While I respect that AD can make the decision of closing a WG, but I see a dozen of emails expressed their disappointment. > > BR, > -Haibin > > >> Given the above points and my summaries out of the last email and the >> one of 6/12, the DECADE WG is going to be closed by today. >> >> The DECADE WG mailing list will remain open until the end of the year, >> to let the people a chance to discuss how to go forward with the drafts. >> >> As suggest in my earlier email: >> The participants are free to overhaul the drafts and to submit them as >> individual submissions to the RFC Editor's Independent Stream. >> >> >> The decisions to close the WG can be of course appealed via the IETF >> appeal process: >> See 'Appeals and PR-Actions' under http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ and RFC 2026. >> >> Martin >> >>> >>> BR, >>> -Haibin >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu] >>>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:53 PM >>>> To: Songhaibin; Richard Woundy >>>> Subject: DECADE WG to be closed >>>> >>>> Dear Rich and Haibin, >>>> >>>> I have finally done my AD review for the DECADE architecture draft after >>>> finishing the DECADE requirements draft. >>>> >>>> The first feedback for the DECADE architecture draft has been provided >>>> in the datatracker and sent to the authors and you by email. >>>> >>>> Both drafts are in an extremely bad shape, i.e., they would require a >>>> major overhaul and have been sent back to the working group due to lack >>>> of technical quality. >>>> >>>> I have already expressed my concerns about the energy and the lack of >>>> technical confidence in the group in my summary email of 6/12. The >>>> requirements and architecture drafts got advanced towards the IESG >>>> afterwards. The push for energy was good. >>>> >>>> However, after reviewing the two key drafts, requirements and >>>> architecture, and receiving feedback from IETF community members, I have >>>> come to the conclusion that the DECADE working group lacks a sound >>>> technical ground. >>>> >>>> The DECADE group started its work in end of April 2010 and is now >>>> working for more than 2 years on the milestones/drafts. The time isn't a >>>> big deal, but after 2 years I would have expected that the documents are >>>> on a good technical level where the WG can build on top of. >>>> >>>> The issues for the potential future protocol works is that if the basics >>>> are not well understood and documented, how can the protocols be >>>> designed in a comprehensive and technical sound way? >>>> I cannot see this anymore. >>>> This was also documented in my email on 6/12: >>>> " >>>> I have seen reviews for the ps, the reqs, and the architecture drafts >>>> which go all in the same direction: where is the technical substance, >>>> DECADE will built on? >>>> >>>> The last meeting in Paris was really discouraging with respect to the >>>> technical substance... >>>> Yet another sign of lack of energy in the WG... >>>> " >>>> >>>> The WG did get a grace period starting after the IETF meeting in Paris >>>> and had the chance to really show that it is moving in the right >>>> direction. However, the current state does still not document this and >>>> therefore the DECADE WG will be closed in the next week. I will inform >>>> the WG on Tuesday afternoon CEST. >>>> >>>> The draft authors of the requirements, architecture, and also the >>>> Integration Examples of DECADE System can submit the respective drafts >>>> via the Independent Stream of the RFC editor (see >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6548 for further information), if they >>>> wish to. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> -- >>>> IETF Transport Area Director >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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 -- IETF Transport Area Director 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
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Peng Zhang
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed S Moonesamy
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed S Moonesamy
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Songhaibin