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

"Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu> Fri, 28 September 2012 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <yang.r.yang@gmail.com>
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 3E14C21F8550 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 O--eJUSfFE9M for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1680421F8527 for <decade@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oagn5 with SMTP id n5so2946512oag.31 for <decade@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OiRBfamAWrzJ9BCsXZ4vzIWOAW/1tnaLSpzmv7wdYLc=; b=oBmMdP1Wm+eHOi8I5+DeaZReL+gnpwI1xZDFOum7wmfeZd0WBbWjyFBvh3ud2GdIYv IyGv92LF+B7KFFS2V7a3NxDzC7FVSTGf6icynVl0urpy4AqUftHSKbAAm0esnkpFhUNv lKv7cWuTra3ZrB1sz47Bv08VkxIbe6UsBgSEwPS2aB7VS58R4s0oZ6lDl6OIs1ojx+Jp nmfBQEDh8dzqQZJSqOQ3DRu7Stzi8gsTI/lMde2CkTW0LHcXBi3Zl1EDX8MmE0xzn0Pg hk0ILQLc/lbCj6N2rkpL/Mx+KtVOyoZDamV11RBuQxopTZrQiNpiL8WguCY9LboOnZmg OTPg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.6.202 with SMTP id d10mr4516453oea.132.1348794444555; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: yang.r.yang@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.152.166 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <50607A0F.3060200@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>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:07:24 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Kxsnzguep-nhCiTOCWfFRK5AnPQ
Message-ID: <CANUuoLpu9kftNKvfRm9pXYtm_XA9NrtNahYOr6m+N-HPcX35Rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f096be25f304cab8adf7
Cc: Konstantinos Pentikousis <k.pentikousis@huawei.com>, "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
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 01:07:26 -0000

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?

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
>
>