Re: [ncrg] Meeting Notes from Today's NCRG Call

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Tue, 14 May 2013 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C2A21F8491 for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRORTwR6yadn for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A66121F915B for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1649; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368549889; x=1369759489; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ZLNtjC96MvcyWgdZm7VliUwjzmC06aGZelQwJQQnClA=; b=F9Ucydgcq+2wcDhzNll9SWmtz6c1WEg3tW47hP8xJu0dAo/uN2zJTj5l AVjl3jheOmUNkvR4Qwxd85zWJcH8J8NxX8+9ABura0xXGF1h6MFAhysvG KqsWjjlDbsoP2TFjhdpTFJdS4uSlxPK0F5IftCUwlwYHVGr2va/fIvF6L 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAHFpklGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagwfAYoEAFnSCHwEBAQQ6UQEIFwsUQh0IAQEEARIIiASub48pjm04gnRhA6hxgw+CJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,671,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="210388764"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 May 2013 16:44:48 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4EGimv5029683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 16:44:48 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 14 May 2013 11:44:48 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [ncrg] Meeting Notes from Today's NCRG Call
Thread-Index: Ac5QtoQHlT7cKX86SVC6tqZM0LbSyQAFDUYA
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:44:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ncrg] Meeting Notes from Today's NCRG Call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Complexity Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:44:57 -0000

On 5/14/13 11:29 AM, "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>


>Attendees: Sheng Jiang, Xin Sun, Rana Sircar, Vladimir Marbukh, Michael
>Behringer (notes)

Sorry I couldn't make the call..too many meetings. :-(

>Subject: Evolving the NCRG framework draft
>Brief notes: 
>-	Suggestion to include metrics and tradeoffs in the framework draft;
>this was presented in Paris.
>-	draft-retana suggest more metrics, and trade-offs, these should also be
>in the framework draft.
>-	Include text to describe the various forms (?) of complexity
>	+ Operational complexity
>	   deployment complexity; configuration complexity, trouble shooting
>	+ Network system complexity
>	  s/w complexity; h/w complexity; Protocol / algortihm complexity
>	+ Management system complexity
>	  OSS systems, etc.

Our draft (draft-retana-network-complexity-framework) shows tradeoffs
(which may result in potential metrics) related to network design.

I agree that the framework should describe different types of design complexity being one of them.  My only concern
with including all forms of complexity, their description, metrics,
tradeoffs, etc. in one document is simply scope creep: we'll try to cover
too much and never finish.  The topic is already complex enough (pun

IMHO, I would prefer the main framework document to briefly describe the
different forms (operational, design, etc.)..but then to have standalone
documents that supplement it by going deeper into a specific form and
describing the tradeoffs and maybe potential metrics.

My 2c.