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

Martin Stiemerling <> Mon, 24 September 2012 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6523A21F8661 for <>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oRmfjS7UDdsk for <>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1F621F8634 for <>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C13101F1B; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:22:11 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHMaRd0arvwY; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:22:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C57101F19; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:22:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:21:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:22:01 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Guyingjie (Yingjie)" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: []
Subject: Re: [decade] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgV0cgQWN0aW9uOiBDb25jbHVzaW9uIG9m?= =?utf-8?q?_Decoupled_Application_Data_Enroute_=28decade=29?=
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" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:22:13 -0000

Hi Yingjie, all,

The quantity of changes does not matter, it is the quality of the 
changes that matter.

Actually, one part of my conclusion that there is lack of technical 
progress is exactly the amount of energy spent to address the reviewer's 
comments and the outcome as we have it right now.

So, if the majority in this group believes that you have good content, 
why are you not progressing the drafts by addressing the reviewer's 
comments (also by replying to the reviewers)?


On 09/24/2012 08:54 AM, Guyingjie (Yingjie) wrote:
> I am a bit surprised by the announcement.
> Richard Alimi and I made a lot of revision in -06 according to David Harrington's comments at this Feb. and after that we have made another 2 versions, -07 and -08, both with quite a bit progress to the previous version. So I think this draft is in decent activity, and the authors are trying their best to improve the draft.
> Best Regards
> Gu Yingjie
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [] 代表 Martin Stiemerling
> 发送时间: 2012年9月20日 乐乐17:53
> 收件人:
> 主题: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
> Dear 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, but it should not be a
> surprise for the working drafts authors. The chairs have been notified
> in advance about this action.
> There has been significant feedback from the community that questioned
> the technical status of DECADE in the recent past. These concerns were
> not been taken up and were not addressed.
> The working group did made only small progress in the last six months,
> which was visible in the low amount of emails on the list, though there
> are a number of issues that should have been discussed.
> The WG chairs were explicitly notified in mid of June that there are
> severe issues and the WG had time to address those issues. However, it
> must have been obvious even before mid of June that there are severe
> issues, i.e., there has been sufficient time to fix it.
> Furthermore, the requirements and architecture draft were submitted to
> the IESG for publication and both drafts have been returned to the WG,
> as both are not ready to be published as RFC.
> You can find the AD review in the datatracker:
> -
> -
> Both drafts do leave any number of key questions unanswered, i.e., they
> are far away from being technically useful to be the base for the next
> steps in the protocol development.
> To give 2 examples:
> 1)
> 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.
> 2)
> What is the model how data objects are handled on the server in the
> sense about who is allowed to do what? The drafts solely talk about
> tokens to be used to do access control. But there other aspects, for
> instance, who is controlling what on a DECADE server: The DECADE server
> can be operated by an ISP, but the content is provided by a content
> provider and it is access by an unlimited set of clients or limited set
> of clients. How is the access control divided between those parties?
> To conclude this email:
> The DECADE group started its work in end of April 2010 and is now
> working for more than 2 years on the milestones and 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.
> Some of you probably ask how the remaining drafts are handled:
> First of all, they are not working groups drafts anymore.
> But you may resubmit those drafts as individual submissions, address the
> review received so far, e.g., Dave Crocker's, Carsten Bormann's, and the
> AD reviews. Ask for feedback again, if you have addressed the reviews in
> your updated drafts.
> If you believe that the drafts are solid work, with a base for further
> protocol development, you may consider to submit the drafts via 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 and RFC 2026.
> Regards,
>     Martin


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