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

Hi Toerless,

> On 9 Dec 2022, at 14:33, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> 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).
> 

This is also the claim of: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-routing-and-addressing-manifesto/

We need a place where researchers and operational engineers can talk!  

> 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.

The above document actually did not mention SIGs, but this could be an option if the “Special Interest” from the IETF side is to look into routing research out there.
I will add SIGs in the next revision.

> 
> 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.
> 

We organized a side meeting in London (https://wiki.ietf.org/meeting/115/sidemeetings) on selected routing papers from ACM SIGCOMM FIRA workshop and ACM ICN.

> 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.

Plans are to have something similar to the above-mentioned side meeting, in Yokohama. Not related to the same workshops but just to the general topic of routing research.
If people are interested we can build something more consistent/recurrent.

Ciao

L.

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