Re: [Coin] Comments re. draft-irtf-coinrg-use-cases (was: Re: Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113)
Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk> Thu, 14 April 2022 12:31 UTC
Return-Path: <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
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 48FC93A1718; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cl.cam.ac.uk
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 Y7F-6Ee9ZV_E; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk (mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2a05:b400:110::25:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 088FF3A1716; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cl.cam.ac.uk; s=mta3; h=Message-Id:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-reply-to:Subject:cc:To: From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CweU8ETy13VwhunoG6/x2LjwU6cFXEe1SYB6jUvhJBs=; t=1649939487; x=1650803487; b=BEKO7vpJALb/0YdHPY4nDXJUoj/Igvr6iTPgZvF1bm8X/rSO5sJPkdgAV8EMfKjwoasqSvimSqY RDeDNF2rzu+DoKsCitxiMijrfL/ZowFTSSyieIZuXdzR7KIwGE1I7nnf4Z7K7R3BHjpkzsNlHTkn6 lxN92ACv4dwyI7yCM1ImEjKGHF0p1M9mxnVV5POQVpBzYFLuiFAwCqsXNCb5acphp0PShgEKWc8Qy D6VAGYKmFlEv2+DIPnYupg0gUyjlxAHzd/jxJ1UftMETC23BbANTk9lhahW+W+j9ztH1ZIoogWu8D 4xXKFwAkFNhDo26CY9uTsAgmq0i91yVXg6fA==;
Received: from svr-ssh-1.cl.cam.ac.uk ([2001:630:212:2a4:216:3eff:fee8:660b]) (dnseec=no) by mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk:587 [2a05:b400:110::25:1] with esmtp (Exim 4.94) id 1neyd3-0003PJ-Oe (envelope-from <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:31:17 +0000
From: Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
cc: Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai=40getnexar.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Schooler, Eve M" <eve.m.schooler@intel.com>, Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>, coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>, Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, coin <coin@irtf.org>, Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
In-reply-to: <Yi2eLL8RRAMO1VhA@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <DM6PR11MB314820FF0F07FAE8653F64FAD70C9@DM6PR11MB3148.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <701CB85D-C0C7-4436-956F-0927D37C2B0B@getnexar.com> <Yi2eLL8RRAMO1VhA@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> message dated "Sun, 13 Mar 2022 08:33:00 +0100."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <4062146.1649939477.1@svr-ssh-1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:31:17 +0100
Message-Id: <E1neyd3-0003PJ-Oe@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/coin/g8tV6iEObUgec0n7NseY2oYs5Vw>
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 12:31:34 -0000
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