Re: [ncrg] Comments

David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> Tue, 25 June 2013 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dmm@1-4-5.net>
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 E182921F99F7 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.297
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.509, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=1.615, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 gQv4XUUgheNh for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C68021F9A18 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id wd20so12259855obb.5 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=Nxyrp1MhWO/mu8CqQ4hqnbAH8o5zDU+eLt+Q3Es+fbM=; b=kzQyKPs3p0maHK3XD79SqRfffXRyxXlBRsV/z3sjkJKdYrx9F8uKWSL9Su9XjPxoOh cY9ISntGaeYANajVdrijvvyXOJFKjvZFPDLbtib46pJwoPbvneCbJ7I3R1AVIV5lm/Ws IQfYgzzBqUvW/TJx3QqyTpMr0yVtIxZ1fcxwMoxh43QHp6IPETzugKcgWOYiNsnOdWnM o5Bf8yzn2Ge6QAt9c6CFwaTlLrwP0DhUx4aJAkupc5deTe+NzGPsOMimmE8/R8tDIkSv Z29BbHbSGAPlMYzI0xD+2Q61lrW6yhmHiSBxbeSxJ7d8WVYHkLk/VbXN7rzJx6cA9Z4J rq5Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.133.243 with SMTP id pf19mr9530271oeb.118.1372175716156; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.45.106 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [98.234.99.22]
In-Reply-To: <9068D1EC-60E7-48B7-8988-AD05817D0CBE@cnit.it>
References: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D53B492@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <9068D1EC-60E7-48B7-8988-AD05817D0CBE@cnit.it>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:55:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHiKxWh0JXoq-S9_e3Ld214FOYup8+kToBN0zisN+Oab9CK+Ew@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: ncrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlPLIAvEIlzSAIUSx/3JrOFwoynPtfnRDbSG3YVuRN8TkZxvBP2PKtByvg6Upfs/cBwa8uy
Cc: Luca Caviglione <luca.caviglione@cnit.it>, "Michael Behringer \(mbehring\)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [ncrg] Comments
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:01:15 -0000

A few comments from today:

(i).  You can think of many (all?) system properties as types of
robustness. For example:
      * Reliability is robustness to component failures	
      • Efficiency is robustness to resource	 carcity	
      • Scalability is robustness to changes to the size and
complexity of the system as a whole
     • Modularity is robustness to structure component rearrangements	
     • Evolvability is robustness of lineages to changes on long time scales

...

(ii). I also mentioned that these systems (organized complex systems)
have 4 basic kinds of constraints:

– component	
– system/environment	
– protocol	
– emergent

I'll talk more about this in Berlin if we have time but briefly the
components that	comprise any system	are typically constrained in	terms
of what they can do (component constraints). System constraints are
about what the system should *do* (we talked about this in terms of
"services"). Protocol constraints are constraints on how a system
communicates with its environment. Finally, emergent constraints are
nontrivial consequences of the interaction between the system and
component-level constraints, and possibly protocols (if any). These
fit into the outline but we might want to give examples.

--dmm
	

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Luca Caviglione
<luca.caviglione@cnit.it> wrote:
> Dear Michael and David,
>
> please find my comments as requested.
>
> 1) Try to produce a sort of "index" from the mindmap in order to find possible holes and gaps to be filled to have a readable document.
>
> 2) Users - how they interact. I do suggest to take into account (more explicitly) definition of service. Specifically, it should be helpful
> to have some details on how users interact with network. However, providing a service to users can be
> merged in robustness/scalability, as you suggested. Yet, it could be an interesting example showing whether users are (are not) isolated
> from the network (e.g., a specific service requirement or change in the user population do not propagate on the whole system).
>
> 3) Agree on the changes made today in the mindmap.
>
> If you want, I can work on a section of the document, and see if it is inline with your views. Maybe I can try sketch some example
> on optimization/constraints in a toy energy consumption use case, as to emphasize possible tradeoffs, or definitions needed in
> the framework document.
>
> Thank you again for the meeting.
>
> Best Regards,
> Luca
>
>
>
>
> ==========================
> Ing. Luca Caviglione, PhD
> CNR - ISSIA (Genoa Branch)
> http://users.ba.cnr.it/issia/iesilc78/
> ==========================