Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu> Mon, 24 September 2012 12:33 UTC
Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2EC21F8607 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGhHy30zvMJj for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8572E21F85C0 for <decade@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D70101F1B; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-TVMKd4APXr; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44FC101EFA; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:32:18 +0200
Message-ID: <506052F5.9070006@neclab.eu>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:32:53 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peng Zhang <pzhang.thu@gmail.com>
References: <50531AB3.6090601@neclab.eu> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B31E95@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <50583257.2080404@neclab.eu> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B33FA6@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <ED9B387A-52BD-4F8F-8AD4-CD7C297FCE86@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ED9B387A-52BD-4F8F-8AD4-CD7C297FCE86@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190]
Cc: "DECADE@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
X-BeenThere: decade@ietf.org
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" <decade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade>
List-Post: <mailto:decade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:33:32 -0000
Dear Peng, On 09/22/2012 07:49 PM, Peng Zhang wrote: > Dear Martin, > > I tend to agree with you on some points, but can hardly agree on all. For example I cannot agree with your points that. > >>> The was no and still has not been an adequate response from the DECADE >>> WG to these reviews. For instance, the requirements did get a lot of >>> feedback from Dave Crocker, but this feedback was never addressed in an > >>> email. > > > As far as I know, Richard has called for participation on addressing these feedbacks, and gave some valuable points (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade/current/msg00694.html). As a participant, I tried to address these issues in my later emails. For example, I gave some suggestions on how to organize the -req and -arch documents (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade/current/msg00697.html). Also, Stephen and me had a lot of discussions on the issue of object naming in -req and -arch documents (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade/current/msg00705.html). We even cc'ed our discussions to the ppsp wg for comments, and received comments from Arno (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade/current/msg00741.html). > > Given this, I don't know why you would arrive at the conclusions that "this feedback was never addressed in an email". To make it short, there is no response to this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04704.html This review was and still is fundamental. Martin > > BR, > > Peng. > > On Sep 22, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Songhaibin wrote: > >> Dear Martin, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu] >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:36 PM >>> To: Songhaibin >>> Cc: Richard Woundy >>> Subject: Re: DECADE WG to be closed >>> >>> Dear Haibin, >>> >>> On 09/17/2012 11:39 AM, Songhaibin wrote: >>>> Dear Martin, >>>> >>>> Hope everything goes well with you and thank you very much for your efforts >>> to reviewing the drafts in detail and giving guidance. >>>> >>>> As I agree with most of your comments to the DECADE requirements draft, but >>> I have to say IMO the architecture document is not that bad. This document gives >>> a clear description of the DECADE server/client components and >>> implementation/design principals which will be reflected in the protocols, IMO >>> this is what an architecture document should do. >>>> >>>> I do not agree there is lack of technical substances to design a base protocol >>> which can satisfy the transport and resource control requirements for content >>> distribution applications. Some detailed design choices are still not very clear, and >>> need efforts for them. >>>> >>>> And recently, the energy is growing, we recently received a lot of list discussion >>> including comments from Kostas about the requirements and architecture and >>> also a new individual draft for the service discovery was submitted. >>> >>> The energy has indeed grown in the WG since before the summer. But, I >>> indicated in my email from mid of June that I have doubts on the >>> technical quality of the DECADE drafts. These doubts have turned into >>> certainty, i.e., see the my AD reviews of the requirements and the >>> architecture. >>> >>> The technical quality of the drafts would be ok, if the WG would be at >>> the beginning of the process of discussing and writing those drafts, but >>> it is not acceptable at the end when the drafts are intended to become RFCs: >>> The technical base is just to weak to continue from, even after spending >>> time and effort of the WG participants for more than 2 years. >> >> The requirements document was accepted on Oct. 18, 2010, and the architecture draft was accepted on March 7, 2011. >> >>> >>> Another important data point, as mentioned earlier: >>> There has been public feedback from IETF community members, such as Dave >>> Crocker and Carsten Bormann, which questioned the technical base of >>> DECADE as a whole. This happened at the end of the 2011 and in the first >>> quarter of 2012. >> >>> The was no and still has not been an adequate response from the DECADE >>> WG to these reviews. For instance, the requirements did get a lot of >>> feedback from Dave Crocker, but this feedback was never addressed in an > >>> email. I also have been unable to sort out what parts of the feedback >>> has been addressed in the updated draft and how, and what parts have not >>> been addressed. >> >> I believe all those comments were addressed in the current draft, as I joined the discussion with the authors to address the comments. Their efforts should be respected. The authors and I would like Dave and Carsten to check the draft with their comments, if they are interested. While I admit answering in the mailing list is a main method to resolve comments, but it is not the only method. >> >>> >>> I have also received much stronger feedback about the DECADE WG in >>> private emails to me. Again from long standing IETF community members >>> that send me feedback arguing that DECADE is not having a technical base >>> to build on top of. >> >> OK. But general rule for IETF is rough consensus, not private emails. Why not discuss their questions in the list? >> >>> >>> You have asked in your other email to give more time to the WG until the >>> next IETF meeting in November. This would be one possible way forward, >>> but I do know about the past 6 months after the IETF meeting in Paris. >>> Not a lot has happened during this period in order to improve the WG >>> drafts, in the sense that there is a solid technical base where DECADE >>> could continue to work from. >> >> I can answer If your question about the technical base can be more specific. >> >>> >>> Even if you and the whole WG would start to work full-time on the >>> drafts, it still would take longer than to the next IETF meeting to move >>> the requirements and architecture forward. My gut guessing is that it >>> will take at least until March 2013. >> >>> To give an example: >>> 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. >>> >>> Has this been discussed at any point in the WG? >> >> I just read the email that Richard answered these questions with text from the current drafts. And I agree with his answers. >> >> While I respect that AD can make the decision of closing a WG, but I see a dozen of emails expressed their disappointment. >> >> BR, >> -Haibin >> >> >>> Given the above points and my summaries out of the last email and the >>> one of 6/12, the DECADE WG is going to be closed by today. >>> >>> The DECADE WG mailing list will remain open until the end of the year, >>> to let the people a chance to discuss how to go forward with the drafts. >>> >>> As suggest in my earlier email: >>> The participants are free to overhaul the drafts and to submit them as >>> individual submissions to 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ and RFC 2026. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>>> >>>> BR, >>>> -Haibin >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu] >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:53 PM >>>>> To: Songhaibin; Richard Woundy >>>>> Subject: DECADE WG to be closed >>>>> >>>>> Dear Rich and Haibin, >>>>> >>>>> I have finally done my AD review for the DECADE architecture draft after >>>>> finishing the DECADE requirements draft. >>>>> >>>>> The first feedback for the DECADE architecture draft has been provided >>>>> in the datatracker and sent to the authors and you by email. >>>>> >>>>> Both drafts are in an extremely bad shape, i.e., they would require a >>>>> major overhaul and have been sent back to the working group due to lack >>>>> of technical quality. >>>>> >>>>> I have already expressed my concerns about the energy and the lack of >>>>> technical confidence in the group in my summary email of 6/12. The >>>>> requirements and architecture drafts got advanced towards the IESG >>>>> afterwards. The push for energy was good. >>>>> >>>>> However, after reviewing the two key drafts, requirements and >>>>> architecture, and receiving feedback from IETF community members, I have >>>>> come to the conclusion that the DECADE working group lacks a sound >>>>> technical ground. >>>>> >>>>> The DECADE group started its work in end of April 2010 and is now >>>>> working for more than 2 years on the milestones/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. >>>>> >>>>> The issues for the potential future protocol works is that if the basics >>>>> are not well understood and documented, how can the protocols be >>>>> designed in a comprehensive and technical sound way? >>>>> I cannot see this anymore. >>>>> This was also documented in my email on 6/12: >>>>> " >>>>> I have seen reviews for the ps, the reqs, and the architecture drafts >>>>> which go all in the same direction: where is the technical substance, >>>>> DECADE will built on? >>>>> >>>>> The last meeting in Paris was really discouraging with respect to the >>>>> technical substance... >>>>> Yet another sign of lack of energy in the WG... >>>>> " >>>>> >>>>> The WG did get a grace period starting after the IETF meeting in Paris >>>>> and had the chance to really show that it is moving in the right >>>>> direction. However, the current state does still not document this and >>>>> therefore the DECADE WG will be closed in the next week. I will inform >>>>> the WG on Tuesday afternoon CEST. >>>>> >>>>> The draft authors of the requirements, architecture, and also the >>>>> Integration Examples of DECADE System can submit the respective drafts >>>>> via the Independent Stream of the RFC editor (see >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6548 for further information), if they >>>>> wish to. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> IETF Transport Area Director >>>>> >>>>> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >>>>> >>>>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >>>>> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >>>>> Registered in England 283 >>> >>> -- >>> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >>> >>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >>> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >>> Registered in England 283 > -- martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 283
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Peng Zhang
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed S Moonesamy
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed S Moonesamy
- Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed Songhaibin