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

["Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]>]

On 9/24/12 8:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> 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
I am wondering this large number of emails in the last few days is the 
"consultation with the working group" part or not.

Richard
>
>    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:[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
>>>
>>>
>>
>