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
- [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled Appli… IESG Secretary
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Konstantinos Pentikousis
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Konstantinos Pentikousis
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Konstantinos Pentikousis
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Songhaibin
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Rahman, Akbar
- [decade] 答复: WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Guyingjie (Yingjie)
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] 答复: WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupl… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [decade] WG Action: Conclusion of Decoupled A… Y. Richard Yang