RE: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)

I find myself in agreement with this thread.

A few of us (daniel King, Dirk Trossen, me) have been trying to run "side meetings" either at IETF meetings (virtual and physical) or as interims (virtual) to bring "interesting, routing-related research papers" to the IETF community. These meetings have been pretty well attended (although IETF-115 was a challenge for scheduling).

If I have it right, the Internet routes around problems. I think we can do that quite well by self-organising. 
- This mailing list is a good place for routing discussions (thanks to the ADs for making that clear).
- We can continue to bring routing research to the IETF community. Let's find recent papers and active research and bring the authors to IETF meetings or to interims to kick up some discussion.
- I know that the RTGWG chairs are happy to have occasional presentations in their working group, and even focussed interims if a topic is bubbling.
- The routing ADs seem to like the idea of including strategic and recognised papers in the Area meeting at IETF meetings.

I'd be happy to work with others (Luigi, Dirk, Dan, ...) to keep this seam of side meetings going.

Let's collect three or four proposals for presentations in Yokohama.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: routing-discussion <routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Luigi Iannone
Sent: 11 December 2022 13:10
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>; Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>; routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)

Hi,

> On 11 Dec 2022, at 00:56, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Joel at all,
> 
> > The idea of a suitable forum for informal conversation between
> > researchers, vendors, and operators, seems useful.
> 
> The crux of the matter is that researchers stay around SIGCOMM, vendors stick to IETF to push RFCs and real operators prefer to go to local NOGs or Apricot/RIPE/NANOG or IXP centric meetings. Then we have a zoo of those "OPEN" everything venues. 

Indeed, the crucial part is the role of the “leaders”, let’s say 2 or 3 chairs (to use IETF terminology) that spend time looking around and trying to bring together these different communities on topics that span among all of them. Building an agenda, but also gathering the topics of interest.

Another point that I made in the draft I have mentioned is about increasing ties with academics from the different venues.
IETF 115 was in London, Jon Crowcroft showed up to the side meeting, which was good.
IETF 116 is in Japan, there are a few researcher there that is worth inviting.
And so on and so forth for the different places where the IETF  will be held.
Even in returning places would be nice to have updates “what did happen to that nice idea you presented last time…”

There is potential for a lot of things….  

I do believe this is possible and would love to have help to making this happen.

Ciao

L.

> 
> As an industry we have an issue - we no longer communicate on the tech level unless you have folks attending and participating in all of the above. And I am not guessing here ... I am (trying) to be part of all of the above. It is no longer how IETF started in the early days. 
> 
> Just take a look at SCION enthusiasts. Observe their struggle to educate/sell the idea. I am not yet convinced that what they cooked is solid, but the effort they are taking gives you a good view on the present situation. 
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion