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

Luca Caviglione <luca.caviglione@cnit.it> Thu, 16 May 2013 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <luca.caviglione@cnit.it>
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 1496021F92A5 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 P-11pQ9PNTOe for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nautilus.area.ba.cnr.it (nautilus3.area.ba.cnr.it [150.145.80.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE7521F92E3 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tesi1.ge.issia.cnr.it (tesi1.ge.issia.cnr.it [150.145.4.83]) by nautilus.area.ba.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830FA53200D0; Thu, 16 May 2013 15:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Luca Caviglione <luca.caviglione@cnit.it>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC7E2CA@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:22:02 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FE979B03-B569-4497-BD7A-BA863E237D9D@cnit.it>
References: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D50A0F1@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC7E2CA@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "ncrg@irtf.org" <ncrg@irtf.org>, "Michael Behringer \(mbehring\)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
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: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:22:15 -0000

Hi Jiang, Michael and all,

I do agree with your vision. 

The "network of complexity" varies according to the viewpoint (e.g., service developer - planner - traffic engineer - physical).

As other suggested, it could be helpful to have a reference document with a quite abstract level of detail 
(in other words, I would draw the line very "far" from specific technicalities) and then some specialized documents. 
Yet, I would avoid to produce too many split information (years ago we did - IMHO - such a mistake in the P2PRG and
we lost completely focus and control of the needed work). 

My 2c too.

Best Regards,
Luca

PS: sorry for missing the meeting too. 

 
Il giorno 15/mag/2013, alle ore 11:47, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> ha scritto:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> ncrg mailing list
> ncrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg