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

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F56E21F89A6 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t+IQuFmUfiXn for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1971321F89A5 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO szxeml208-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.4-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCE19856; Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml459-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.202) by szxeml208-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 15 May 2013 17:47:07 +0800
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by szxeml459-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 15 May 2013 17:47:08 +0800
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.215]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 15 May 2013 17:47:06 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>, "ncrg@irtf.org" <ncrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: Meeting Notes from Today's NCRG Call
Thread-Index: Ac5QtoQHlT7cKX86SVC6tqZM0LbSyQAljmFQ
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:47:06 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC7E2CA@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D50A0F1@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D50A0F1@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [ncrg] Meeting Notes from Today's NCRG Call
X-BeenThere: ncrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Complexity Research Group <ncrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/ncrg>
List-Post: <mailto:ncrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:48:19 -0000

Hi, Michael and all,

My main concern for the current framework draft is how WG wants it end.

If the WG only wants to use the framework to be a working document, which records the WG's process, the current form seems fine. If the WG wants the document to be published as a RFC at the end, I think the current form has to be restructured. The current document looks more like a list of essay.

We need to find a way to organize these scattered idea into a single story. My suggestion is we should first try to reach consensus on a clear problem scope, or in other word, the purpose why we research network complexity. Then we can work out a story clue.

Best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ncrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:ncrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
>Michael Behringer (mbehring)
>Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:30 PM
>To: ncrg@irtf.org
>Subject: [ncrg] Meeting Notes from Today's NCRG Call
>
>Attendees: Sheng Jiang, Xin Sun, Rana Sircar, Vladimir Marbukh, Michael
>Behringer (notes)
>
>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.
>-	Sheng: Does cost (for example) represent a good metric?
>-	Cover the aspect of complexity: user facing? Internal, eg s/w
>complexity?
>-	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.
>-	Intrinsic complexity of the system vs complexity from the user base?
>-	Rana: Should we limit to layer 3 and above? Or cover optical, wireless,
>etc? We may want to explain in the scope that the doc doesn't want to be
>specific to a particular solution/layer.
>-	Rana: Cost is a very good metric to measure complexity.
>-	Xin: Could improve 3.2: define different types of complexity. (operational
>complexity, s/w complexity,
>-	Vladimir: participated in a Santa Fe Complex Systems Institute workshop
>on network complexity; will point us to it. Also a recent Nature article. He
>could present to the group about these findings in Berlin.
>
>Next steps:
>-	propose on the list what you would like to contribute to the draft, or how
>it should be changed.
>-	set up bi-weekly calls to make progress on this.
>
>Thanks all for the discussion!
>Michael
>
>
>Recording:
>https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=68212117&r
>Key=eac0f0696ce0d40c
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ncrg mailing list
>ncrg@irtf.org
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg