Dear Martin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:martin.stiemerling@xxxxxxxxx] > 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@xxxxxxxxx] > >> 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@xxxxxxxxx > >> > >> 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@xxxxxxxxx > > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited > Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL > Registered in England 283