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

"Rahman, Akbar" <> Sun, 23 September 2012 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB7A21F8559 for <>; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.491
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7cyocyVamXnb for <>; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F35A21F8555 for <>; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:47:28 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD9935.C5176CBA"
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:47:25 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
Thread-Topic: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
Thread-Index: AQHNmAK+y9myRhkH+kSZKUqot0hH7peVkf+AgAGky2A=
References: <><><><> <> <>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <>
To: "Songhaibin" <>, "Martin Stiemerling" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2012 02:47:28.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5015E10:01CD9935]
Cc:, Konstantinos Pentikousis <>
Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 02:47:30 -0000

For the record, here is the internal Word tracking document from June 2012 that the authors used to ensure that we addressed all the comments that we received from Carsten (Apps Area Reviewer) and Dave Harrington (Previous AD) on the Architecture I-D Rev. 04.  All these comments were incorporated into the subsequent versions of the Architecture I-D.  The authors had kept the chairs in the loop with the tracking document.

This is part of the reason that the authors take offense to (and are puzzled by) the suggestion that we did not seriously address the comments that we got from various reviewers.


-----Original Message-----
From: Songhaibin [] 
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:49 AM
To: Martin Stiemerling; Rahman, Akbar
Cc:; Konstantinos Pentikousis
Subject: RE: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)

> 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.

I was notified in June about the energy of the working group, but I was also surprised about the abrupt notification of the closure of the WG with the email from Martin on Monday, I saw a good list discussion, new I-D submission and was preparing for the Atlanta meeting when I received this notification. I also expressed my disagree to the comment of lack of technical substances. Before Martin became the AD for the DECADE WG, the architecture document was intended to remove a lot of technical details according to comments received, it's not a protocol draft.

The extensive comments from Martin to these two IDs are mostly effective, but editorial. They could be addressed together with Kostas's comments in the next version . Again, I do not think these two documents are extremely bad and lack of technical substances.