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