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

Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu> Fri, 28 September 2012 13:38 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 B17AA21F85C3 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, 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 6IiXXa8sFR-1 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53F921F8505 for <decade@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAEE101FB2; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:38:07 +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 I9O9DK9VbInV; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:38:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D98101F95; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:37:46 +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; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:37:25 +0200
Message-ID: <5065A82A.9020304@neclab.eu>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:37:46 +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: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
References: <20120919230313.17329.44102.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <505AE794.8070304@neclab.eu> <8D38716F0C1A444BA0CD7E96454366C23A4DDEF6@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04B138D2@SAM.InterDigital.com> <505C74F3.7060002@neclab.eu> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04B139B7@SAM.InterDigital.com> <50604EB1.8040404@neclab.eu> <50607A0F.3060200@cs.yale.edu> <CANUuoLpu9kftNKvfRm9pXYtm_XA9NrtNahYOr6m+N-HPcX35Rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLpu9kftNKvfRm9pXYtm_XA9NrtNahYOr6m+N-HPcX35Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190]
Cc: "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>, Konstantinos Pentikousis <k.pentikousis@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Application Data Enroute (decade)
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:38:08 -0000

On 09/28/2012 03:07 AM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, September 24, 2012, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
>
>     On 9/24/12 8:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
>
>
>         4. Working Group Termination
>
>
>             Working groups are typically chartered to accomplish a
>         specific task
>             or tasks.  After the tasks are complete, the group will be
>         disbanded.
>             However, if a WG produces a Proposed or Draft Standard, the
>         WG will
>             frequently become dormant rather than disband (i.e., the WG
>         will no
>             longer conduct formal activities, but the mailing list will
>         remain
>             available to review the work as it moves to Draft Standard and
>             Standard status.)
>
>             If, at some point, it becomes evident that a working group
>         is unable
>             to complete the work outlined in the charter, or if the
>         assumptions
>             which that work was based have been modified in discussion or by
>             experience, the Area Director, in consultation with the
>         working group
>
>     I am wondering this large number of emails in the last few days is
>     the "consultation with the working group" part or not.
>
>
> A timer just fired time out. So let me resend the procedure question.
> Can someone clarify where, when, and with whom did the "in consultation
> with the working group" happen?

I did discuss with the chairs and they are my first contact to the WG.
The operation of the WG is the duty of the chairs.

Again what I have said before and to save everybody's energy and time:
Write an appeal, if you believe that DECADE has done technical progress 
and it was closed without any good reason, or if you see procedural 
mistakes.

   Martin

> Thanks!
>
> Richard
>
>
>     Richard
>
>
>             can either:
>
>             1. Recharter to refocus its tasks,
>             2. Choose new Chair(s), or
>             3. Disband.
>
>             If the working group disagrees with the Area Director's
>         choice, it
>             may appeal to the IESG (see section 3.4).
>
>
>         and cite the email announcing the termination of the DECADE WG
>         "The DECADE WG has reached the point where it is evident that the
>         chartered work cannot be completed at a technical level suitable
>         for the
>         coming steps of the protocol definition and also within an
>         appropriate
>         time frame."
>
>         The drafts do not show that the WG is completing its technical work.
>
>            Martin
>
>
>
>
>             -- snip --
>
>                 - As an author, I do NOT feel that I was part of any
>                 extensive discussions regarding potential shutting down
>                 of the DECADE WG and especially stopping the current
>                 active WG drafts (especially the Architecture I-D where
>                 I was an author).
>
>
>             Talk to your chairs and consider that the requirements went from
>             publication requested (i.e., on the way to the IESG) back to
>             the WG
>             (i.e., not on the way to the IESG).
>
>             The same is true for the architecture draft.
>
>
>             -- snip --
>
>
>             BR
>
>             /Akbar
>
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu]
>             Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:09 AM
>             To: Rahman, Akbar
>             Cc: Konstantinos Pentikousis; decade@ietf.org
>             Subject: Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled
>             Application Data Enroute (decade)
>
>             Hi Akbar,
>
>             On 09/21/2012 03:21 PM, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
>
>                 To All,
>
>
>
>                 I also want to make some points for the record:
>
>                 - As an author, I do NOT feel that I was part of any
>                 extensive discussions regarding potential shutting down
>                 of the DECADE WG and especially stopping the current
>                 active WG drafts (especially the Architecture I-D where
>                 I was an author).
>
>
>             Talk to your chairs and consider that the requirements went from
>             publication requested (i.e., on the way to the IESG) back to
>             the WG
>             (i.e., not on the way to the IESG).
>
>             The same is true for the architecture draft.
>
>
>                 - We did have one lunch meeting in Vancouver with Martin
>                 and the chairs but that was publicly announced and open
>                 to all in the WG.  At that meeting, I recall Martin
>                 asking the attendees if there was industry interest for
>                 the DECADE work.  From what I recall, everyone there did
>                 express various levels of interest and support.  I
>                 didn’t hear anyone say that DECADE was a "wasted
>                 effort". So, frankly I was surprised and disappointed to
>                 see the WG shut down so suddenly.  If there really is no
>                 community support to continue with the activity, then so
>                 be it.  But you cannot conclude that there is not
>                 interest without first having an open discussion.
>
>
>             To be honestly, but expressing interest and transforming
>             interest to
>             technical progress are two very distinct actions.
>
>             I have seen a lot of 'expressing interest', but the
>             technical progress
>             was and is just not there.
>
>             I also told at the lunch meeting in Vancouver that I want to
>             see actions
>             on the two main drafts in the WG, i.e., the requirements and the
>             architecture. Yes there has been action, but the technical
>             quality of
>             the drafts is far from being useful for any further protocol
>             development.
>             See also my email with 2 examples on issues not addressed in
>             neither the
>             requirements nor the architecture draft.
>
>
>                 - In terms of the document quality.  The first draft of
>                 the Architecture I-D was in March 2011.  Since then we
>                 have gotten extensive comments from various excellent
>                 reviewers.  But as is often the case when you have
>                 multiple reviewers, you sometimes get conflicting
>                 directions.  Some reviewers wanted a high level abstract
>                 architecture that avoided all "implementation" details.
>                   Other reviewers wanted a more detailed approach that
>                 got more into the details of the protocols and inner
>                 workings of the nodes.  I personally tried in a good
>                 faith effort to address all the comments and to try to
>                 strike a balance in addressing the philosophies of the
>                 different reviewers.
>
>
>             The architecture drafts clearly fails to show the
>             architecture of the
>             DECADE protocols. See my AD review.
>
>             You have indeed received extensive review
>

-- 
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