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

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 5/14/13 11:29 AM, "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Hi!

>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
complexity..network 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
intended)!

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.

Alvaro.