Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113

[Jon Crowcroft <[e-mail]>]

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 09:49:21PM +0000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> > sorry, but you are wrong.

> About what ?

if several people perceive divisiveness in a debate, then it is there, by definition.
if you don't perceive it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it not so.

talking about the tone or a dialog is not name calling. it is an observation.

perhaps we need an in-network moderator for this group - 

now there's an "AI in a switch" challenge, 
especially if you consider the ethical challenges of such a technology :-)
(not least privacy and key sharing with third parties)....


going back on topic, for me, the scoping problem with the semantic routing&addressing work
is that it was originated in response to soling limitations of routing and addressing, but is
clearly not rooted in what one would design for identifying and path finding to and between
distributed applications running in switches and routers as well as end systems, beyond
applications that were only concerned with the business of routing....

identifiers and locators for distributed computational objects in general would have a whole
slew of other attrbutes and characterists (I would guess) that would deal with the
requirements (e.g. from other coin type use cases than routing) of those applications...

i think t his is a post-layering type challenge - of course, one can hack up a network layer
identifier system to name/find computational stuff (especially with big ipv6 identiefiers) -
or one can do this with application layer ids (URIs etc), or one could try to design something
fit for purpose from scratch (just for example thinking about security needs of such systems,
seems different, in general, than those for the routing infrastructure)....

now t hat'd be a fun project!



> 
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 08:35:16AM +0000, Schooler, Eve M wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I am sorry to hear that you feel that way. But you can imagine that
> > > anybody who might feel addressed by your "vitriol" would not be happy
> > > about that
> > > name calling either. I for once don't that anybody did spill vitriol, 
> and
> > > especially
> > > if you think i did, then i would very much appreciate if you would 
> call
> > > such
> > > a perception out, for example in private mail, before making it lead 
> to
> > > such
> > > choices for the RG.
> > >
> > > I am also not sure where there would be divisiveness in the community
> > > wrt. COIN work.
> > > As i said, with a charter as openly written, there is a lot of 
> freedom to
> > > put
> > > work items in or out of scope, and the chairs did attempt to define a 
> line
> > > what was in and out. In response, i was suggesting a technical
> > > presentation
> > > that was intended to describe the intricate dependencies between what 
> was
> > > declared to be in and what was maybe? declared out (not to dissimilar 
> to
> > > what IMHO
> > > the use-case draft has), but with use-case examples focussed on what i
> > > think
> > > we would call semantic addressing. To help continue that
> > > technical/research discussion.
> > >
> > > In any case, it would be nice to understand if/when you would make a
> > > decision
> > > whether to accept my proposal for a presentation based on the outline 
> i
> > > sent.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >     Toerless
> > >
> > > > 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dirk Trossen
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:30 PM
> > > > To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>; coin 
> <[e-mail]>
> > > > Cc: coinrg-chairs <[e-mail]>
> > > > 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marie-Jose
> > > Montpetit
> > > > Sent: 11 March 2022 00:45
> > > > To: coin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > Cc: coinrg-chairs
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > 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
> > > >
> 
> --
> Coin mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
>