Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cases (was: Re: Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113)
Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com> Thu, 14 April 2022 12:47 UTC
Return-Path: <dirk.trossen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: coin@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coin@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896583A17CD for <coin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PP8voGONZrxK for <coin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188403A17CB for <coin@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KfK130Tx1z67x8s; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:44:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) by fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:47:04 +0200
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:47:03 +0100
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.201.68.196]) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.201.68.196]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:47:03 +0100
From: Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com>
To: Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
CC: Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, "Schooler, Eve M" <eve.m.schooler@intel.com>, Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>, coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>, coin <coin@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cases (was: Re: Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113)
Thread-Index: AQHYT/ugbohNRMwJMUmw0MNyz+jiUqzvWvRQ
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:47:03 +0000
Message-ID: <7e33a71c30274ee989dd1fd930cc7ed2@huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR11MB314820FF0F07FAE8653F64FAD70C9@DM6PR11MB3148.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <701CB85D-C0C7-4436-956F-0927D37C2B0B@getnexar.com> <Yi2eLL8RRAMO1VhA@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <E1neyd3-0003PJ-Oe@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E1neyd3-0003PJ-Oe@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.202.181.139]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/coin/DIRM0IZuu6pjUh_gTs8MZ0oVfcc>
Subject: Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cases (was: Re: Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113)
X-BeenThere: coin@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "COIN: Computing in the Network" <coin.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/coin>, <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/coin/>
List-Post: <mailto:coin@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin>, <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:47:14 -0000
Jon, Thanks, very useful reference and something to pull into the use case draft (added the list of possible revisions/additions). It raises an interesting question to discuss, namely how to position the ongoing 'in-network' evolution in DCs against the envisioned 'in-network' evolution in the wider Internet. For starters, it would be interesting to see the limitations of approaches outlined in the paper when being applied to beyond DC environments. Best, Dirk -----Original Message----- From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk] Sent: 14 April 2022 14:31 To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Cc: Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>; Schooler, Eve M <eve.m.schooler@intel.com>; Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>; Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com>; coin <coin@irtf.org>; Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cases (was: Re: Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113) there's a nice list of use cases in https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3452296.3472905 first parageaph of introduction see refs distributed applications [45, 47, 67, 73, 78]. > Trying to bring back the reply to what Sharon observes to the RGs > work, which so far officially only includes the use-cases it seems. > > As a very high-level observation, i find it less than ideal to prefix > everything in that document equally just with "COIN" because it > eliminates important differences and attaches unnecessary a new term > to something that already is well known. It would also be good to > remember that just because an RG has a particular name, it is not > necessary for all technical classiciations to re-use that RGs name. > > To me, the mayority of use-cases presented is really "just" > distributed applications, which in my view just "use" the network, but > which are not "in" the network. Aka: > > These use-cases run predominantly on general-purpose compute > (x86/arm/risc5) and this > compute is somehow distributed and may include mobile components (like > user-endpoints). > And we called this distributed applications for decades without anyone > ever complaining about that term. > > These applications need some varying degree of better-than-best-effort > services from the network, such as controlled or guaranteed > throughput, latency, loss and availability, and they also may need > some multipoint packet delivery, and some discovery functions from the > network to seed their self-orchestration. But that set of requirements > does in my book not make them "in" the network. That set of > requirements existed for decades as well. > > Another example: if a vendor like Cisco or Huawei sells a > side-edge-device consisting of a VM/container host system and you can > separately instantiate a router, a firewall, a DNS, an email, a web > and a bunch of other servers: That to me is not "compute in the > network". > That is just softwareization to combine decade old functions/devices > into a single box. > > So, to me, 5.3, (Virtual Network Programming), is the only proper "in > network" case described in the document. > > Now, my understanding of what's in and whats not in the network might > be different from what the RG mayority wants, but at least it would be > great to spend more time with a somewhat longer list of examples and > explain for each of them whether why and how its considered to be in > or out, if in and out is really what the RG wants to define. > > IMHO, it would be more productive to come up with a more > differentiated set of classifications. > Distributed applications and their needs for better network services > do not become less important by NOT giving them a new name COIN. > > One could also simply rename the RG to "Computer Over and In the Network" > if one feels > the risk of kicking all the interesting work out of scope by not > declaring it to be "in". > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:51:14PM +0200, Sharon Barkai wrote: > > There is some duality in the list between those focusing on making > switches/routers more like computers, and those focusing on using the > network cloud as a well .. a cloud - for when it fits - topology, > sharding, privacy etc. > > > > In my view these are simply bottom-up top-down sides of the same you > know… so im sure the chairs will settle this in time with proper > frameworks. > > > > We needn't start from scratch on neither. Theres been good existing > proposals for baseline on both fronts already. > > > > --szb > > Cell: +972.53.2470068 > > WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 > > > > > On Mar 11, 2022, at 10:36, Schooler, Eve M > > > <eve.m.schooler@intel.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Dirk, All, > > > > > > My apologies about the ambiguity in the comment about the agenda. > > > It > was intended to convey that we struggled to have a FULL agenda, and > NOT to pass judgement on the quality of the topics that might have > been presented. Of the individuals we reached out to present, many > stated the day/timing simply did not work out. > > > > > > As for transparency…If you are a regular reader of this list, then > it is painfully obvious that there has been quite a bit of > divisiveness happening both on and off the list. As chairs, given the > state of the agenda and the tone of the dialog, we felt the need to > take a step back from the vitriol and simply take a deep breath to regroup. > > > > > > We certainly have valued the continued involvement of the COIN > community, which has made many of the discussions vibrant and rewarding. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Eve > > > > > > From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Dirk Trossen > > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:30 PM > > > To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; coin > > > <coin@irtf.org> > > > Cc: coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org> > > > Subject: Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113 > > > > > > Hi J/E/M, all, > > > > > > Now that’s a surprise, not just in content but also in style since > the RG community lacks the transparency of this decision. > > > > > > As a COIN RG member myself for now more than 3 years (spanning two > organizations), I had looked forward to discussing at least three > activities in which I am involved in, namely the (i) use case advances > (trying to formulate and categorize the pertinent research questions > in a number of COIN areas), (ii) the applicability of SDN for routing (i.e. > the use of DP programmability for realizing novel routing solutions, > which according to the chairs is in scope of COIN), and (iii) a > discussion on how COIN could help improve on DLT realizations; all > activities resulting from research on topics I see as relevant to and > within COIN. > > > > > > So this gives already three agenda items from where I’m coming > > > from > (depending on willingness for time allocation, between about 45 to > 60mins on an agenda in my mind) but yet we are told at ‘we cannot put > a good agenda together’. Is there nothing beyond these items, really, > and/or is this a judgement of those items in quality (I would expect > good discussions on them but maybe it is just me)? > > > > > > So I’m disappointed but also shocked by this style of simply > cancelling the RG meeting with that (too) thin ‘we cannot put a good > agenda together for IETF113’ explanation. I cannot and do not see the > reasoning behind it albeit I may speculate but I am not a friend of > those second guesses. > > > > > > Hence, I would ask the community here: what discussions were we > looking forward to have? Are those good enough to discuss regardless > of the RG meeting being cancelled? If there is no RG meeting for > whatever reason, maybe we can simply come together among those > interested in those discussions and have them regardless, such as in a > side meeting of the ‘COIN community’ (not the RG)? > > > > > > From my side, I would be highly interested in that since I have > valued the COIN discussions over the past years and don’t want to let > go of this for reasons that are just not well enough explained below. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Dirk > > > > > > From: Coin [mailto:coin-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Marie-Jose > Montpetit > > > Sent: 11 March 2022 00:45 > > > To: coin <coin@irtf.org> > > > Cc: coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org> > > > Subject: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113 > > > > > > Dear all: > > > > > > Because of many converging issues, delays and (non) availability > > > of > invited researchers and papers we cannot put a good agenda together > for IETF113. Hence we are cancelling the meeting. > > > > > > We plan to re-group, consult the community and plan for 114. > > > > > > Discussions on the use cases and other important COIN topics will > have to continue or be initiated on the list for now. Of course as the > co-author of a draft that was going to be presented I am disappointed. > > > > > > The co-chairs are in full agreement that this is the right > > > decision > at this point and the IRTF leadership has been kept in the loop. > > > > > > J/E/M > > > > > > Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D. > > > marie@mjmontpetit.com > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Coin mailing list > > > Coin@irtf.org > > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin > > > -- > > Coin mailing list > > Coin@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin > > > -- > --- > tte@cs.fau.de > > -- > Coin mailing list > Coin@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin >
- [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113 Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Dirk Trossen
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Ike Kunze
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Schooler, Eve M
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Dirk Trossen
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Jon Crowcroft
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Sharon Barkai
- [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cases (… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Jon Crowcroft
- Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cas… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cas… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… David R. Oran
- Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF1… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cas… Dirk Trossen
- Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cas… Ike Kunze
- Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cas… Jon Crowcroft
- Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cas… Dirk Trossen