Re: [Idnet] IETF99 for applying AI/ML into network management: Follow-up

Dear Pedro,

Thanks for your hints. Please find some hints from my side.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IDNET [mailto:idnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Martinez-Julia
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 1:19 AM
> To: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
> Cc: idnet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idnet] IETF99 for applying AI/ML into network management:
> Follow-up
> 
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 07:05:17PM +0200, Jérôme François wrote:
> > Dear all,
> 
> Dear Jerome,
> 
> Thank you very much for your comments. Please find below some hints from my
> side.
> 
> > Thanks Sheng for having organized the meeting. As we are running out
> > of time, here are some comments I want to share:
> > - in the figure with the loop, data to be used could be from other
> > sources of data out from the network to enrich the analysis
> 
> This is delicate since, strictly speaking, such data cannot form part of the "control
> loop" because it is not a variable to control. However, in a practical view it will be
> connected to the input of the loop (and I am currently working on solutions that
> consider such information in such point), but it must be clear that it will not form
> part of the closure of the loop.

I am not sure whether you means that there should be an "interface" or an "entity" between the other source data and control loop?

BTW, have you ever obtain some achievement about such point that can be shared?

> 
> > - regarding use cases, it was unclear for me what is your or the group
> > plan. I think many of us express interests for other use cases but I'm
> > not sure how to contribute / select use cases (and if we have to ? ->
> > see next item)
> 
> To my experience, the best option is to find some common requirements to all
> use cases we are taking into account and then try to find a smaller use case that
> reflects only those requirements. We can then "vote" which aspects must be
> considered from the beginning and which can be left for future use cases.

I think that since NMRG may be a probably choice, it is better to explore via this thread. 

> 
> > - the immediate plan is to organize a regular workshop (probably
> > within NMRG). I fully support the idea as this helps to federate the
> > community first to ambition then coordinated actions (regarding the
> > issues with datasets for example). But recall that that will be
> > workshop within a RG group and it is probably too early to identify
> > what should be standardized  (or look at a WG in that case). Looking
> > at the experience with flow measurement workshop (within NMRG as
> > well), it should be more open for presentations and discussions and if
> > a potential standard is identified, this can be targeted afterwards.
> 
> That is nice, but has some risks. We must first set a strong topic or we can find a
> too high diversion from the issues that IDNET must resolve.
> 
> I agree with you in that it is good to gather proposals to resolve the dataset issues
> and it can be the main (I propose that only) topic of the first workshop on IDNET.
> 
> Those are my 2 cents. Thanks for reading.
> 
> > Best regards,
> > jerome
> 
> Regards,
> Pedro
> 

Thanks for reading. 

Regards,

Yansen

> --
> Pedro Martinez-Julia
> Network Science and Convergence Device Technology Laboratory Network
> System Research Institute National Institute of Information and Communications
> Technology (NICT) 4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795, Japan
> Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> *** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IDNET mailing list
> IDNET@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idnet