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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 09 December 2022 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B793C152714; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 05:33:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RlMfjLV3ma8j; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 05:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A295BC151718; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 05:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAFFC5486ED; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 14:33:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id C53C54EC260; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 14:33:48 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 14:33:48 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Matt Mathis <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, tsv-area@ietf.org, pim <pim@ietf.org>, routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)
Message-ID: <Y5M5PNT6PV/YsG/V@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CAH56bmBnqi4peTWUXOVy0KRRXRc1L7TP+atFfVF6qb_OKBMBwg@mail.gmail.com> <C303F9BF-F96A-4710-A4B5-4228807C07F7@gmail.com> <52907137-CA5A-4042-AB2C-23FD9B032210@gmail.com> <E1p2SAw-006HQa-3s@mta0.cl.cam.ac.uk> <2D989E7C-EBFB-42C4-9D55-F934A1437B19@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2D989E7C-EBFB-42C4-9D55-F934A1437B19@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/IJpEcCWaoykpZFh0uONY55Sni9Q>
X-BeenThere: tsv-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Transport and Services Area Mailing List <tsv-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 13:33:59 -0000

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:54:57PM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > path exploration? but consider the shadow pricing...
> 
> Just something semi-formal where we can meet regularly. But first, please lets articuulate the problem very clearly. And bring operators in so they can confirm the problem that researchers are stating are real problems that need solving.

I actually would love to just have a standing forum to better bring routing researchers
together with industrial routing experts. Aka: not focussed on a specific issue
(as Tony's past RRG instance). E.g.: where researcher can ask questions to the experts, or propose
research and ask if/how this is useful to the industry, and where industry folks can
ask for researchers to look into specific issues (i think there are for example a lot of
simulations to investigate behaviors that we'd like to have from the undustry).

Not sure if "Research Group" is the right name for this. I think it would be a lot
closer to the SIG concept (https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/iesg/specialinterestgroups),
except that that concept was built and specified around interaction between IETF
and operational considerations of a specific community. Not on bringing more researchers
back to the IETF.

We do have a subset of what i think such an RRG would do in rtgwg - researchers bring ideas -
and then they most often figure out that they can only proceed when they throw themselves
fully into the RFC process (which most of them cannot/wantnot do). And from what i 
understand even this is not always welcome by rtgwg, because it does take a significant
amount of time that folks feel should better be spent on actual WG deliverables.

Of course, i am mostly interested in the ietf->research direction, e.g.: where the IETF
community can better raise the questions of interest to be researched because the way i
see it, there is no forum whatsover for this part.

Cheers
   Toerless