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

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

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?

Thanks!

Richard

On 9/21/12 9:33 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:53, Martin Stiemerling<[e-mail]>  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
>