Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed

Songhaibin <> Sat, 22 September 2012 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1C221F884D; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.971
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.628, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ecJzOAZrwHIY; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBA921F884A; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKX96813; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:53:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 07:51:48 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 07:52:18 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:52:11 +0800
From: Songhaibin <>
To: Martin Stiemerling <>
Thread-Topic: DECADE WG to be closed
Thread-Index: AQHNkm+beTF1FP7MtkORFrVdv9nRf5eNxdIggAGAV4CABqD7AA==
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:52:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [decade] DECADE WG to be closed
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: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:53:06 -0000

Dear Martin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling []
> 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.


> 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 and RFC 2026.
>    Martin
> >
> > BR,
> > -Haibin
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Stiemerling []
> >> 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
> >> for further information), if they
> >> wish to.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>     Martin
> >>
> >> --
> >> IETF Transport Area Director
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
> >> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
> >> Registered in England 283
> --
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
> Registered in England 283