Re: [irtf-discuss] [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter

[Paulo Mendes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Borje and Dirk

I would like to provide the following comments in what concerns the ICNRG objectives and milestones:

A) ICNRG objectives

Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work proposed to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first objective to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."

As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more precise, including some examples in order to avoid misunderstandings.. I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for new services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for instance in the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational, storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the analysis of the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-services and Internet-of-connected-objects.

I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to prove the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios. Given more importance to implementations is inline with the other mentioned objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN testbeds for performing experiments with running code."

I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the following sentence...

"The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN architecture with large applicability." 

... to replace the following two sentences:

"The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future ICN architecture."

"The intention is that one result from this work could be a common protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF protocols."


B) ICNRG Milestones

The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and research challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to describe an ICN architecture.

What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned before. So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the identified main research challenges and the analysis of different approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN, aiming to have high applicability".

I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "... long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN architecture.. " since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of saying that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN architecture based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the ICNRG.

Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG


Cheers
Paulo


On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Börje Ohlman wrote:

> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting. 
> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there, or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very much appreciated.
> 
> 	Börje & Dirk
> 
> <Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

-------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
University Lusofona, Portugal
[e-mail]
http://siti.ulusofona.pt
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]