Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

Hi Aaron,

right. This is a good paper and  5.2 summarises the main issues both for the IETF and IRTF ☺ (before Marie-Jose again tries to explain the differences between the IRTF and IETF :)

The fact is that there is the need to do more long-run work to change the acceptance of standards in the academic/scientific committee. I have had colleagues in juris of PhDs which surprisingly think drafts are not relevant. In terms of academic CV, I had actually such comments also about both IETF and IRTF contributions to standards ☺

Yes, we all have to contribute so on my side, all MSc and PhD students are involved to at least monitor working groups. Some of them end-up in contributing. As the paper provided by Aaron shows, this is time consuming, and unfortunately there is no funding to support a direct involvement from the students. Not even mine, for the last decade.

Remote participation is therefore a good measure; however,  without broad dissemination, the acceptance may be reduced.

I second all of the proposals by Laurent…they are effective measures.
Rute

From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Aaron Ding
Sent: 09 October 2019 15:34
To: Rute Sofia <sofia@fortiss.org>
Cc: coinrg-chairs@irtf.org; jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk; coin@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

Hi Rute,

assumingly, some points below have been made for both communities, especially for the European academic side:
http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2014/January/2567561-2567572.pdf

The funding part has always been a concern, not just for academia..

Cheers,
Aaron
--
Assistant Professor, TU Delft
Head of Cyber-Physical Intelligence (CPI) Lab
http://homepage.tudelft.nl/8e79t/

From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org<mailto:coin-bounces@irtf.org>> on behalf of Rute Sofia <sofia@fortiss.org<mailto:sofia@fortiss.org>>
Date: Wednesday, 9 October 2019 at 15:12
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com>>, Noa Zilberman <noa.zilberman@cl.cam.ac.uk<mailto:noa.zilberman@cl.cam.ac.uk>>
Cc: "coinrg-chairs@irtf.org<mailto:coinrg-chairs@irtf.org>" <coinrg-chairs@irtf.org<mailto:coinrg-chairs@irtf.org>>, "coin@irtf.org<mailto:coin@irtf.org>" <coin@irtf.org<mailto:coin@irtf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

Dear Marie-Jose Montpetit,

there is a reason for that. Standards are not usually, at least in Europe, considered valid success indicators from an academic/scientific perspective. Classes on research methodologies do not usually approach standardisation, even if oriented towards research. That is why a lot of students (IMO, from my own academic experience in several countries) don’t follow the IRTF/IETF.

Additionally, participation in the IRTF/IETF requires travelling, which is costly. Academic institutions and projects do not (usually ) foresee this. In fact, in European projects the standardisation is actually left to the industry partners. No funding, no reason to participate ☺

This is slowly changing.

Tutorials, and organization of workshops co-located to scientific events, is a fast way to attract students. After all, most conferences today have a PhD forum…I agree also with the other measures being proposed…

BR
Rute

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com>>
Sent: 09 October 2019 13:10
To: Rute Sofia <sofia@fortiss.org<mailto:sofia@fortiss.org>>; Noa Zilberman <noa.zilberman@cl.cam.ac.uk<mailto:noa.zilberman@cl.cam.ac.uk>>
Cc: coinrg-chairs@irtf.org<mailto:coinrg-chairs@irtf.org>; coin@irtf.org<mailto:coin@irtf.org>
Subject: RE: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

I also did both and still do. But if professors are not interested students will not either. So we have to work all angles.

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory
mariejose@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:mariejose@mjmontpetit.com>
mariejo@mit.edu<mailto:mariejo@mit.edu>

On October 9, 2019 at 7:02:00 AM, Rute Sofia (sofia@fortiss.org<mailto:sofia@fortiss.org>) wrote:
Well,

it is for students. I am in both worlds (academia and research towards industry) so… ☺
Rute

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com>>
Sent: 09 October 2019 12:42
To: Rute Sofia <sofia@fortiss.org<mailto:sofia@fortiss.org>>; Noa Zilberman <noa.zilberman@cl.cam.ac.uk<mailto:noa.zilberman@cl.cam.ac.uk>>
Cc: coinrg-chairs@irtf.org<mailto:coinrg-chairs@irtf.org>; coin@irtf.org<mailto:coin@irtf.org>
Subject: RE: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

But that is the point: IRTF is NOT standardisation.

But OK for tutorials it seems its needed :)

mjm

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory
mariejose@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:mariejose@mjmontpetit.com>
mariejo@mit.edu<mailto:mariejo@mit.edu>

On October 9, 2019 at 4:38:21 AM, Rute Sofia (sofia@fortiss.org<mailto:sofia@fortiss.org>) wrote:
Hello,

I would also suggest considering organizing tutorials and workshops co-located with relevant scientific events. IMO most students are not directed to standardisation. Therefore, most of them usually do not work towards the IETF/IRTF.

So to attract academia, one of the best intruments are scientific events.

BR
Rute Sofia

From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org<mailto:coin-bounces@irtf.org>> On Behalf Of Noa Zilberman
Sent: 08 October 2019 20:01
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com>>
Cc: coinrg-chairs@irtf.org<mailto:coinrg-chairs@irtf.org>; coin@irtf.org<mailto:coin@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

Hi,

I would suggest that we need to find ways to incentivize academics to engage with COIN.

Some ideas that I can think of are:
1. Clearly list challenges on the wiki. These may be accompanied by drafts, but not necessarily, and can be something that was discussed on the mailing list,
   a presentation from a meeting etc. Ideally those will be accompanied by one or two lines to describe the challenge (+pointers). This helps not only to identify gaps, but also if there's a graduate student looking for a project in in-network computing, there may be a "go to page" hosted by COINRG with potential research challenges, and potential collaborators.
2. Invite postdocs and students to talk at the meetings. They are usually the first authors of papers so they know the tech side well, are more likely to have the time to travel, and are eager to discuss their research.
3. Make data available (this was briefly mentioned in the meeting). These may be use cases, datasets, traces etc.  Research is better if it is driven by real world data (and more likely to get published).
4. List collaboration opportunities, internships etc that fall within COINRG domain.

Kind Regards,
Noa

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com>> wrote:
Today at the Interim Noa Zilberman raised the issue on how to help academics contribute to COIN (thanks Noa!).

Obviously drafts are not the right vehicle for most academics and Colin Perkins added that we could have other mechanisms.

Some inputs:
- academic presentations at the meeting with appropriate papers stored in the Github and datatracker (we already have done some of this)
- if a topic could lead to a RFC support academic collaborators in writing a draft
- keeping a list of related conferences and try to have mini-PRG meetings there

But I am sure there is much more. So what are the list’s ideas?

The minutes of the meeting will be issued and I have a recording I will upload to the GitHub.

Thanks all!

mjm

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory
mariejose@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:mariejose@mjmontpetit.com>
mariejo@mit.edu<mailto:mariejo@mit.edu>
--
Coin mailing list
Coin@irtf.org<mailto:Coin@irtf.org>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin