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

Jérôme François <> Tue, 25 July 2017 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4DB131CCF for <>; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZmuZpcRNU88 for <>; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D48131CCE for <>; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,411,1496095200"; d="scan'208";a="284895957"
Received: from (HELO []) ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 25 Jul 2017 16:26:00 +0200
To: yanshen <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgRnJhbsOnb2lz?= <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:26:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idnet] IETF99 for applying AI/ML into network management: Follow-up
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The IDNet \(Intelligence-Defined Network\) " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:26:25 -0000


Le 21/07/2017 à 09:32, yanshen a écrit :
> - 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.
> I support the regular workshop (whatever in any form). I fully understand your worried about the "too early". However, I think it is better to find a common or say a potential standardized point to concentrate the focus. After that, we can expand our focus to other valuable area. A details point may help us to clear up the thought, during which we may evolve a clear methodology for the future work. Of course I totally agree with your open attitude. I mean only to concentrate the topic firstly. 
So, why not targeting a WG (rather than a RG because in my understanding
primary focus of RG is not standardization) ?

best regards,