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

"Y. Richard Yang" <> Fri, 21 September 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410B021F867C for <>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtjX29MElXbt for <>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8BF21F8679 for <>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Faculty-Supports-MacBook-Pro-2.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8LGgvRP024440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:42:57 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:42:57 -0400
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on
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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:43:01 -0000

Hi Carsten,

Thanks a lot for the offer of continued feedback and the "cheering up" 
to the authors.

As I see it, the WG was guided to work on high-level (-req and -arch) 
documents, and then was killed because the documents do not provide 
sufficient lower-level details. As a result, I do not see them surviving 
the IETF process. Thanks for the good draft-farrell-decade-ni example. 
But the example is a specific design document, and the killed docs are 
design-guideline documents. Hence, I am quite pessimistic on they they 
may go through the IETF process. A specific protocol/component design 
document might be more possible. Does this make sense?



On 9/21/12 9:33 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:53, Martin Stiemerling<>  wrote:
>> 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.
> Let me just say that, although I haven't had much time to invest in this work after my initial review, I'm certainly available for continued review.
> Maybe the authors can take the closure of the WG as an opportunity to relieve themselves of some of the too many strings pulling on this.
> Focus more sharply, nail things down, and it may still work out.
> If you need some cheering up, consider that -- outside the confines of the WG -- draft-farrell-decade-ni did work out, as it did exactly this focusing and nailing down.
> Grüße, Carsten