Subject: [Icn-interest] Call for Papers: Annals of Telecommunication, Special Issue on Digital content (r)evolution
From: giovanna.carofiglio at alcatel-lucent.com (Giovanna)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:48:40 +0200

Dear Colleagues,

for those whom it may interest I enclose hereafter the CfP of a special 
Issue of Annals of Telecommunications on "Networked digital media 
Digital content (r)evolution: towards 
communication/information/knowledge convergence" I am involved in.
One of the topics is 'content-based networking' which includes
- naming, addressing and name resolution,
- transport and routing mechanisms,
- caching techniques,
- network coding,
- efficient video streaming.

I hope that many of you will be able to submit proposals.

Best Regards,

Giovanna CAROFIGLIO
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs France
Networking and Networks domain
Centre de Villarceaux, Route deVillejust, 91620NOZAY
Phone:+33 1 30773273  <tel:%2B33%201%203077%203273>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110531/7f29d23b/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CfPDigitalContent.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 90985 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110531/7f29d23b/attachment-0001.pdf>

From: martin.vigoureux at alcatel-lucent.com (Martin Vigoureux)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:26:11 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Holger,

then it might be preferable to state that energy efficiency is a design 
goal, rather than anticipating on the energy efficiency of ICNs.
What do you think?

martin

Le 24/05/2011 17:29, Holger Karl a ?crit :
> Hello Martin,
>
>
> On 24.05.2011, at 13:56, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
>
>> Hello Holger,
>>
>> thanks for your comments.
>> On the energy savings addition:
>> Is the theoretical energy efficiency you mention a design goal for the ICNs or a collateral feature that we would like to evaluate?
>>
>
> I would goal it a secondary design goal: it might be a low-hanging fruit.
>
> best
>
> Holger
>
>
>
>> regards,
>> martin
>>
>>
>> Le 24/05/2011 09:45, Holger Karl a ?crit :
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> thanks, very good!
>>>
>>> I took the liberty to make some changes - attached find a new version as
>>> well as a diff.
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> * I do not understand the sentence: "where ubiquitous replication and
>>> dynamic emergence of eligible object copies for access transactions are
>>> the norm." ??
>>>
>>> * Why is simulation work specifically given preference? I understand
>>> preference for implementation, but signaling out simulation work over
>>> analytic results seems arbitrary?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>
>
>
> ---
> Prof. Dr. Holger Karl
> Computer Networks group - http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/ag-karl/
> Chairman of the board of the
> Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing - http://wwwcs.upb.de/pc2/
> Universit?t Paderborn
> Tel.: (05251) 60-5375 FAX: (05251)60-5377
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
>
>
>

From: pedromj at um.es (=?UTF-8?B?UGVkcm8gTWFydMOtbmV6IEp1bGnDoQ==?=)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:57:14 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>	<[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

27/05/11 13:22, Stephen Farrell:
>
> Hi Pedro,
>

Hi,

>
> I think it doesn't need to be mentioned in the charter. We're talking
> about an IRTF RG, where the charter is not really constraining.

Ok.

>
> The reason I'm pushing back here is that we seem to be spending a lot
> of time on charter text when IMO we'd be better off just arranging
> when to meet in Quebec and actually starting the technical work so
> that the IRTF chair will feel more confident that the putative RG
> will actually do stuff.
>

Then, let's move forward. I'm here to contribute as much as I can.

> Stephen.
>

Regards,
Pedro

-- 
Pedro Mart?nez Juli?
Department of Communication and Information Engineering
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Murcia
Email: pedromj at um.es
---------------------------------------------------------
*** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***

From: stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Farrell)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:22:30 +0100
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>	<[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Pedro,

On 27/05/11 11:43, Pedro Mart?nez Juli? wrote:
> 27/05/11 11:37, Stephen Farrell:
>>
>> I think that's one possible approach among others. I do not think
>> that having "identity management mechanisms regulate" anything at all
>> is actually necessary in all cases. So, if those words were to stay
>> in then the need to be preceded with "for example" - my preference
>> would be to leave them out and then have this discussion once the
>> RG is up and running.
>>
> 
> I understand your position about leaving out this changes and agree with
> you that identity management is not necessary for all cases, but I think
> that identities should be considered from the beginning. There are two
> levels of definition, the deepest level considers the identities of the
> information objects from the inception of ICNs and the outermost level
> considers how to use those identities and how to do identity management
> when necessary. I think it would be good to take advantage of the
> benefits that the identities of information objects can provide, so I
> propose to take into account only that "deepest level" and let the other
> level to be discussed further or to be specific in each approach. What
> do you think?

I think it doesn't need to be mentioned in the charter. We're talking
about an IRTF RG, where the charter is not really constraining.

The reason I'm pushing back here is that we seem to be spending a lot
of time on charter text when IMO we'd be better off just arranging
when to meet in Quebec and actually starting the technical work so
that the IRTF chair will feel more confident that the putative RG
will actually do stuff.

Stephen.

From: pedromj at um.es (=?UTF-8?B?UGVkcm8gTWFydMOtbmV6IEp1bGnDoQ==?=)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:43:23 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

27/05/11 11:37, Stephen Farrell:
>
> I think that's one possible approach among others. I do not think
> that having "identity management mechanisms regulate" anything at all
> is actually necessary in all cases. So, if those words were to stay
> in then the need to be preceded with "for example" - my preference
> would be to leave them out and then have this discussion once the
> RG is up and running.
>

I understand your position about leaving out this changes and agree with you 
that identity management is not necessary for all cases, but I think that 
identities should be considered from the beginning. There are two levels of 
definition, the deepest level considers the identities of the information 
objects from the inception of ICNs and the outermost level considers how to 
use those identities and how to do identity management when necessary. I think 
it would be good to take advantage of the benefits that the identities of 
information objects can provide, so I propose to take into account only that 
"deepest level" and let the other level to be discussed further or to be 
specific in each approach. What do you think?

> S.
>

Regards,
Pedro

-- 
Pedro Mart?nez Juli?
Department of Communication and Information Engineering
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Murcia
Email: pedromj at um.es
---------------------------------------------------------
*** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***

From: stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Farrell)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:37:08 +0100
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

On 27/05/11 10:03, Pedro Mart?nez Juli? wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm new to the list but would like to contribute with a little point
> about security issues from the identity point of view. I propose to
> modify the paragraph "With ICN new security models...", resulting as
> follows:
> 
> "With ICN new security models are needed. Today's host centric trust
> model, retrieving data from a trusted server via a secure connection, no
> longer applies for ICN where ubiquitous replication and dynamic
> emergence of eligible object copies for access transactions are the
> norm. Instead, security/trust/identity functions are rather expected to
> be bound to the information object themselves, employing signed objects
> and ensuring name-data integrity. Moreover, not all objects will be
> universally accessible, requiring authorization and scoping mechanisms
> where identity management mechanisms regulate (negotiate) the access to
> the information."
> 
> Notice that I only changed "security/trust" by "security/trust/identity"
> and added a few words at the end of the paragraph ("... where identity
> management mechanisms regulate (negotiate) the access to the
> information.").
> 
> To be clear, what I propose is to make the identity of the users
> (providers and consumers), together with the own identity of the
> objects, negotiate the access to the information. Therefore, information
> objects become an integral part of network operations, instead of being
> only passive artifacts.
> 
> Please, let me know what do you think about this little change. Thank you.

I think that's one possible approach among others. I do not think
that having "identity management mechanisms regulate" anything at all
is actually necessary in all cases. So, if those words were to stay
in then the need to be preceded with "for example" - my preference
would be to leave them out and then have this discussion once the
RG is up and running.

S.

> 
> Regards,
> Pedro
> 

From: pedromj at um.es (=?UTF-8?B?UGVkcm8gTWFydMOtbmV6IEp1bGnDoQ==?=)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 11:03:21 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi all,

I'm new to the list but would like to contribute with a little point about 
security issues from the identity point of view. I propose to modify the 
paragraph "With ICN new security models...", resulting as follows:

"With ICN new security models are needed. Today's host centric trust model, 
retrieving data from a trusted server via a secure connection, no longer 
applies for ICN where ubiquitous replication and dynamic emergence of eligible 
object copies for access transactions are the norm. Instead, 
security/trust/identity functions are rather expected to be bound to the 
information object themselves, employing signed objects and ensuring name-data 
integrity. Moreover, not all objects will be universally accessible, requiring 
authorization and scoping mechanisms where identity management mechanisms 
regulate (negotiate) the access to the information."

Notice that I only changed "security/trust" by "security/trust/identity" and 
added a few words at the end of the paragraph ("... where identity management 
mechanisms regulate (negotiate) the access to the information.").

To be clear, what I propose is to make the identity of the users (providers 
and consumers), together with the own identity of the objects, negotiate the 
access to the information. Therefore, information objects become an integral 
part of network operations, instead of being only passive artifacts.

Please, let me know what do you think about this little change. Thank you.

Regards,
Pedro

-- 
Pedro Mart?nez Juli?
Department of Communication and Information Engineering
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Murcia
Email: pedromj at um.es
---------------------------------------------------------
*** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***

From: markus at mhof.com (Markus Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 06:59:52 -0400
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Dirk,

That's what I meant - include in the charter the preparation of a problem statement draft as a deliverable. Not to include the summary itself in the charter.

Thanks,
  Markus

On May 26, 2011, at 4:16 AM, Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher at neclab.eu> wrote:

> Markus,
> 
>> What about including a summary of the expected benefits of ICN, i.e.
>> first describe the *problem* to be solved in *quantifiable* terms, then
>> describe the main concepts and continue on to the research challenges.
> 
> Thanks, good point.
> 
> I'd preferably do that in more detail, in a problem statement draft, but I agree that the charter should ideally provide at least a summary for that.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dirk
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

From: Dirk.Kutscher at neclab.eu (Dirk Kutscher)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:16:48 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Markus,

> What about including a summary of the expected benefits of ICN, i.e.
> first describe the *problem* to be solved in *quantifiable* terms, then
> describe the main concepts and continue on to the research challenges.

Thanks, good point.

I'd preferably do that in more detail, in a problem statement draft, but I agree that the charter should ideally provide at least a summary for that.

Best regards,

Dirk

From: Borje.Ohlman at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6rje_Ohlman?=)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:03:17 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] [irtf-discuss]  Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Giacomo,

I think this is a good proposal which I do support. If people agree I will add this to the charter when I do the next update (probably this weekend).
I will also go through all the mails and do all uncontroversial updates, e.g. improved formulations, special thanks to Holger on that account.
BTW, from then on the charter for the proposed ICN RG will be available at the Wiki page
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/icnrg

	B?rje

On 25 maj 2011, at 23.37, Giacomo Morabito wrote:

> Dear B?rje and Dirk, dear all
> 
> it looks like there is not a consensus on the weight to assign to
> different experimental methodologies (implementation in physical
> testbeds vs. simulations).
> As you know methodologies exist that can combine the two approaches so
> you can run simulations where some of the nodes are "physical" nodes,
> or create testbeds where part of the network is "simulated/emulated".
> In any case I believe that this discussion confirms what I already
> heard from B?rje some time ago: the community needs to reach an
> agreement on the experimental approach so that different solutions can
> be compared in a consistent way.
> 
> Accordingly, I would suggest to add another milestone about this issue.
> It could be something like:
> 
> "The ICNRG will produce a document that provides guidelines for
> experimental activities in the area of ICN so that different,
> alternative solutions can be compared consistently."
> 
> Best regards
> Giacomo
> 
> 
> 
> Il giorno 25/mag/11, alle ore 12:42, Paulo Mendes ha scritto:
> 
>> Hi Dirk
>> 
>> see my comments inline...
>> 
>> On May 24, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Paulo,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the suggestions. Please my some comments inline.
>>> 
>>>> Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work
>>>> proposed
>>>> to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first
>>>> objective
>>>> to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN
>>>> research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that
>>>> are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."
>>> 
>>> OK, I agree.
>>> 
>>>> As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more
>>>> precise, including some examples in order to avoid
>>>> misunderstandings..
>>>> I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for
>>>> new
>>>> services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for
>>>> instance in
>>>> the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational,
>>>> storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the
>>>> analysis of
>>>> the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-
>>>> services and Internet-of-connected-objects.
>>> 
>>> Here, I really disagree. We did not want to create the notion of
>>> different "Internets", i.e., Information-Centric, Internet-of-
>>> Services, Internet-of-Things etc. The message is that we want to
>>> assess ICN's applicability as a general Internet technology
>>> ("Internet at large").
>> 
>> I was not suggestion the creation of the notion of different
>> "Internets", Just to say something in the charter about the
>> applicability scenario at large... For instance, is ICNRG going to
>> look at ICN solutions for the Internet as is it, or for the
>> "expected" Internet which may be extended to different types of
>> portable devices. But is all of us have this perspective in mind,
>> than "Internet at large" is fine :)
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than
>>>> simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to
>>>> prove
>>>> the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios.
>>>> Given
>>>> more importance to implementations is inline with the other
>>>> mentioned
>>>> objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN
>>>> testbeds for performing experiments with running code."
>>> 
>>> Right, so IMO that aspect is already covered. We also said "work
>>> that is based on implementation and simulation experiences will be
>>> given preference.".
>> 
>> RIght.. The question is that this sentence givens equal preference
>> to simulations and testbed experiences. I was suggesting to give
>> higher preference to testbed experiences.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does
>>>> not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the
>>>> following sentence...
>>>> 
>>>> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol
>>>> framework
>>>> for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols
>>>> for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN
>>>> architecture with large applicability."
>>>> 
>>>> ... to replace the following two sentences:
>>>> 
>>>> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across
>>>> different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future
>>>> ICN architecture."
>>>> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common
>>>> protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for
>>>> standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF
>>>> protocols."
>>> 
>>> OK, got your point. It's true that "form the basis of a future ICN
>>> architecture" can be misinterpreted.
>>> 
>>> Here, we wanted to strike a balance: it's true that *system
>>> architecture* work is not the IETF's core business. However, for an
>>> IRTF research group, we expect some architecture work to be
>>> required, e.g., to find out about common core elements that you
>>> need to agree on (for later protocol specifications etc.). For
>>> example, RFC 4838 is a good example of architecture work that
>>> describes fundamental architecture concepts for DTN, which has been
>>> a good basis for subsequent DTNRG work on the Bundle Protocol spec.
>>> 
>>> Will think of a better formulation.
>> 
>> Good.. If we are talking about RFC4838 type of work, and not a 3GPP
>> type of description this is expectable.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> B) ICNRG Milestones
>>>> 
>>>> The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and
>>>> research
>>>> challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to
>>>> describe
>>>> an ICN architecture.
>>>> 
>>>> What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned
>>>> before.
>>>> So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the
>>>> identified main research challenges and the analysis of different
>>>> approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN,
>>>> aiming to have high applicability".
>>>> 
>>>> I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "...
>>>> long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN
>>>> architecture.. "
>>>> since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of
>>>> saying
>>>> that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say
>>>> that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN
>>>> architecture
>>>> based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the
>>>> ICNRG.
>>> 
>>> OK, we have to remember that this is not an IETF WG charter. For a
>>> research group, that is really highly contribution-driven, we
>>> should allow some flexibility. From that perspective, I think it
>>> would be better not promise delivering guidelines to devise an
>>> architecture. If course, that would not keep the WG from doing
>>> that, if people are interested.
>> 
>> OK
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the
>>>> applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential
>>>> standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG
>>> 
>>> Again, normally "yes" for a tightly controlled activity, but for a
>>> research group, I rather see our contribution in advancing ICN and
>>> offering the result to the community. I would not like to have a
>>> milestone on that.
>> 
>> I was not proposing a very tight activity, but just a reality-check
>> milestone to analyze what is exactly the probability of having ICNRG
>> research work being ported to IETF... I like to see this reality
>> check in any research work, from PhD thesis to EU projects :-)
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Paulo
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks again for the comments!
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Dirk
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Paulo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this
>>>> draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin
>>>> Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has
>>>> commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some
>>>> first
>>>> positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
>>>>> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still
>>>> room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please
>>>> feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
>>>>> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF
>>>> Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting.
>>>>> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF
>>>> meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be
>>>> there,
>>>> or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people
>>>> might
>>>> have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is
>>>> very
>>>> much appreciated.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   B?rje & Dirk
>>>>> 
>>>>> <Draft-ICN-RG-
>>>> Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>>>> 
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
>>>> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in
>>>> Informatics
>>>> Systems and Technologies (SITI)
>>>> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN
>>>> Lab)
>>>> University Lusofona, Portugal
>>>> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
>>>> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
>>>> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
>> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in
>> Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
>> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
>> University Lusofona, Portugal
>> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
>> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
>> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icn-interest mailing list
>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
> 

From: morabito.giacomo at gmail.com (Giacomo Morabito)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 23:46:23 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Dear B?rje and Dirk, dear all

it looks like there is not a consensus on the weight to assign to  
different experimental methodologies (implementation in physical  
testbeds vs. simulations).
As you know methodologies exist that can combine the two approaches so  
you can run simulations where some of the nodes are "physical" nodes,  
or create testbeds where part of the network is "simulated/emulated".
In any case I believe that this discussion confirms what I already  
heard from B?rje some time ago: the community needs to reach an  
agreement on the experimental approach so that different solutions can  
be compared in a consistent way.

Accordingly, I would suggest to add another milestone about this issue.
It could be something like:

"The ICNRG will produce a document that provides guidelines for  
experimental activities in the area of ICN so that different,  
alternative solutions can be compared consistently."

Best regards
Giacomo

Il giorno 25/mag/11, alle ore 12:42, Paulo Mendes ha scritto:

> Hi Dirk
>
> see my comments inline...
>
> On May 24, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
>
>> Hi Paulo,
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions. Please my some comments inline.
>>
>>> Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work  
>>> proposed
>>> to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first  
>>> objective
>>> to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN
>>> research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that
>>> are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."
>>
>> OK, I agree.
>>
>>> As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more
>>> precise, including some examples in order to avoid  
>>> misunderstandings..
>>> I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for  
>>> new
>>> services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for  
>>> instance in
>>> the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational,
>>> storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the  
>>> analysis of
>>> the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-
>>> services and Internet-of-connected-objects.
>>
>> Here, I really disagree. We did not want to create the notion of  
>> different "Internets", i.e., Information-Centric, Internet-of- 
>> Services, Internet-of-Things etc. The message is that we want to  
>> assess ICN's applicability as a general Internet technology  
>> ("Internet at large").
>
> I was not suggestion the creation of the notion of different  
> "Internets", Just to say something in the charter about the  
> applicability scenario at large... For instance, is ICNRG going to  
> look at ICN solutions for the Internet as is it, or for the  
> "expected" Internet which may be extended to different types of  
> portable devices. But is all of us have this perspective in mind,  
> than "Internet at large" is fine :)
>
>
>>
>>> I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than
>>> simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to  
>>> prove
>>> the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios.  
>>> Given
>>> more importance to implementations is inline with the other  
>>> mentioned
>>> objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN
>>> testbeds for performing experiments with running code."
>>
>> Right, so IMO that aspect is already covered. We also said "work  
>> that is based on implementation and simulation experiences will be  
>> given preference.".
>
> RIght.. The question is that this sentence givens equal preference  
> to simulations and testbed experiences. I was suggesting to give  
> higher preference to testbed experiences.
>
>>
>>> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does
>>> not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the
>>> following sentence...
>>>
>>> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol  
>>> framework
>>> for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols
>>> for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN
>>> architecture with large applicability."
>>>
>>> ... to replace the following two sentences:
>>>
>>> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across
>>> different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future
>>> ICN architecture."
>>> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common
>>> protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for
>>> standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF
>>> protocols."
>>
>> OK, got your point. It's true that "form the basis of a future ICN  
>> architecture" can be misinterpreted.
>>
>> Here, we wanted to strike a balance: it's true that *system  
>> architecture* work is not the IETF's core business. However, for an  
>> IRTF research group, we expect some architecture work to be  
>> required, e.g., to find out about common core elements that you  
>> need to agree on (for later protocol specifications etc.). For  
>> example, RFC 4838 is a good example of architecture work that  
>> describes fundamental architecture concepts for DTN, which has been  
>> a good basis for subsequent DTNRG work on the Bundle Protocol spec.
>>
>> Will think of a better formulation.
>
> Good.. If we are talking about RFC4838 type of work, and not a 3GPP  
> type of description this is expectable.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B) ICNRG Milestones
>>>
>>> The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and  
>>> research
>>> challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to  
>>> describe
>>> an ICN architecture.
>>>
>>> What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned  
>>> before.
>>> So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the
>>> identified main research challenges and the analysis of different
>>> approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN,
>>> aiming to have high applicability".
>>>
>>> I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "...
>>> long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN  
>>> architecture.. "
>>> since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of  
>>> saying
>>> that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say
>>> that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN  
>>> architecture
>>> based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the  
>>> ICNRG.
>>
>> OK, we have to remember that this is not an IETF WG charter. For a  
>> research group, that is really highly contribution-driven, we  
>> should allow some flexibility. From that perspective, I think it  
>> would be better not promise delivering guidelines to devise an  
>> architecture. If course, that would not keep the WG from doing  
>> that, if people are interested.
>
> OK
>
>>
>>> Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the
>>> applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential
>>> standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG
>>
>> Again, normally "yes" for a tightly controlled activity, but for a  
>> research group, I rather see our contribution in advancing ICN and  
>> offering the result to the community. I would not like to have a  
>> milestone on that.
>
> I was not proposing a very tight activity, but just a reality-check  
> milestone to analyze what is exactly the probability of having ICNRG  
> research work being ported to IETF... I like to see this reality  
> check in any research work, from PhD thesis to EU projects :-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Paulo
>
>
>>
>> Thanks again for the comments!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dirk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Paulo
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this
>>> draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin
>>> Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has
>>> commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some  
>>> first
>>> positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
>>>> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still
>>> room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please
>>> feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
>>>> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF
>>> Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting.
>>>> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF
>>> meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be  
>>> there,
>>> or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people  
>>> might
>>> have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is  
>>> very
>>> much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> 	B?rje & Dirk
>>>>
>>>> <Draft-ICN-RG-
>>> Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
>>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
>>> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in  
>>> Informatics
>>> Systems and Technologies (SITI)
>>> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN  
>>> Lab)
>>> University Lusofona, Portugal
>>> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
>>> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
>>> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icn-interest mailing list
>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in  
> Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
> University Lusofona, Portugal
> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

From: paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt (Paulo Mendes)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:42:17 +0100
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Dirk

see my comments inline...

On May 24, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Dirk Kutscher wrote:

> Hi Paulo,
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions. Please my some comments inline.
> 
>> Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work proposed
>> to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first objective
>> to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN
>> research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that
>> are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."
> 
> OK, I agree.
> 
>> As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more
>> precise, including some examples in order to avoid misunderstandings..
>> I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for new
>> services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for instance in
>> the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational,
>> storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the analysis of
>> the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-
>> services and Internet-of-connected-objects.
> 
> Here, I really disagree. We did not want to create the notion of different "Internets", i.e., Information-Centric, Internet-of-Services, Internet-of-Things etc. The message is that we want to assess ICN's applicability as a general Internet technology ("Internet at large").

I was not suggestion the creation of the notion of different "Internets", Just to say something in the charter about the applicability scenario at large... For instance, is ICNRG going to look at ICN solutions for the Internet as is it, or for the "expected" Internet which may be extended to different types of portable devices. But is all of us have this perspective in mind, than "Internet at large" is fine :)

> 
>> I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than
>> simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to prove
>> the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios. Given
>> more importance to implementations is inline with the other mentioned
>> objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN
>> testbeds for performing experiments with running code."
> 
> Right, so IMO that aspect is already covered. We also said "work that is based on implementation and simulation experiences will be given preference.".

RIght.. The question is that this sentence givens equal preference to simulations and testbed experiences. I was suggesting to give higher preference to testbed experiences.

> 
>> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does
>> not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the
>> following sentence...
>> 
>> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework
>> for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols
>> for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN
>> architecture with large applicability."
>> 
>> ... to replace the following two sentences:
>> 
>> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across
>> different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future
>> ICN architecture."
>> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common
>> protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for
>> standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF
>> protocols."
> 
> OK, got your point. It's true that "form the basis of a future ICN architecture" can be misinterpreted.
> 
> Here, we wanted to strike a balance: it's true that *system architecture* work is not the IETF's core business. However, for an IRTF research group, we expect some architecture work to be required, e.g., to find out about common core elements that you need to agree on (for later protocol specifications etc.). For example, RFC 4838 is a good example of architecture work that describes fundamental architecture concepts for DTN, which has been a good basis for subsequent DTNRG work on the Bundle Protocol spec.
> 
> Will think of a better formulation.

Good.. If we are talking about RFC4838 type of work, and not a 3GPP type of description this is expectable.

> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> B) ICNRG Milestones
>> 
>> The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and research
>> challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to describe
>> an ICN architecture.
>> 
>> What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned before.
>> So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the
>> identified main research challenges and the analysis of different
>> approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN,
>> aiming to have high applicability".
>> 
>> I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "...
>> long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN architecture.. "
>> since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of saying
>> that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say
>> that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN architecture
>> based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the ICNRG.
> 
> OK, we have to remember that this is not an IETF WG charter. For a research group, that is really highly contribution-driven, we should allow some flexibility. From that perspective, I think it would be better not promise delivering guidelines to devise an architecture. If course, that would not keep the WG from doing that, if people are interested.

OK

> 
>> Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the
>> applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential
>> standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG
> 
> Again, normally "yes" for a tightly controlled activity, but for a research group, I rather see our contribution in advancing ICN and offering the result to the community. I would not like to have a milestone on that.

I was not proposing a very tight activity, but just a reality-check milestone to analyze what is exactly the probability of having ICNRG research work being ported to IETF... I like to see this reality check in any research work, from PhD thesis to EU projects :-)

Cheers

Paulo

> 
> Thanks again for the comments!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dirk
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Paulo
>> 
>> 
>> On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this
>> draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin
>> Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has
>> commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first
>> positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
>>> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still
>> room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please
>> feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
>>> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF
>> Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting.
>>> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF
>> meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there,
>> or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might
>> have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very
>> much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 	B?rje & Dirk
>>> 
>>> <Draft-ICN-RG-
>> Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
>> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics
>> Systems and Technologies (SITI)
>> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
>> University Lusofona, Portugal
>> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
>> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
>> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icn-interest mailing list
>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

-------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
University Lusofona, Portugal
paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
http://siti.ulusofona.pt
Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006

From: paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt (Paulo Mendes)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:35:54 +0100
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Martin

Just to clarify. It is clear that the charter does not say that an architecture will be standardized. It couldn't in any case - IRTF does not aim to devise standards. I was commenting on the fact that one goal described in the charter seems to be to write "...documents describing an ICN architecture", and IETF/IRTF is focus on working on protocols and not architectures. 3GPP, ITU-T are more looking at architectures, most of the time making use of IETF protocols. So, we do not want to create misunderstandings :).

Paulo

On May 24, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:

> Hello Paulo,
> 
> Le 24/05/2011 13:55, Paulo Mendes a ?crit :
>> Hi Borje and Dirk
>> 
>> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the following sentence...
>> 
>> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN architecture with large applicability."
>> 
>> ... to replace the following two sentences:
>> 
>> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future ICN architecture."
>> 
>> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF protocols."
> 
> In turn, I would be careful with the statement "IETF/IRTF does not standardize architectures" :-)
> It all depends on what one reads in "architecture".
> Note also that the charter does not say that an architecture will be standardized.
> I think the text is fine.
> 
> best regards,
> martin

-------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
University Lusofona, Portugal
paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
http://siti.ulusofona.pt
Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006

From: hkarl at mail.uni-paderborn.de (Holger Karl)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:29:47 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello Martin, 

On 24.05.2011, at 13:56, Martin Vigoureux wrote:

> Hello Holger,
> 
> thanks for your comments.
> On the energy savings addition:
> Is the theoretical energy efficiency you mention a design goal for the ICNs or a collateral feature that we would like to evaluate?
> 

I would goal it a secondary design goal: it might be a low-hanging fruit. 

best

Holger 

> regards,
> martin
> 
> 
> Le 24/05/2011 09:45, Holger Karl a ?crit :
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> thanks, very good!
>> 
>> I took the liberty to make some changes - attached find a new version as
>> well as a diff.
>> 
>> Questions:
>> * I do not understand the sentence: "where ubiquitous replication and
>> dynamic emergence of eligible object copies for access transactions are
>> the norm." ??
>> 
>> * Why is simulation work specifically given preference? I understand
>> preference for implementation, but signaling out simulation work over
>> analytic results seems arbitrary?
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Holger
>> 

---
Prof. Dr. Holger Karl
Computer Networks group - http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/ag-karl/
Chairman of the board of the 
Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing - http://wwwcs.upb.de/pc2/
Universit?t Paderborn
Tel.: (05251) 60-5375 FAX: (05251)60-5377

--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

From: lars.eggert at nokia.com (Lars Eggert)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:40:13 +0300
Subject: [Icn-interest] [irtf-discuss] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

On 2011-5-23, at 14:27, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting. 
> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF meeting

I think there was a misunderstanding: I suggested the *weekend* before the IETF (i.e., Saturday or Sunday) or the IETF week itself, not the week before. (Since we don't have rooms available then.)

(The reason I suggested the weekend is that it will be easier to get a room and there will be less conflicts. But people need to be there for the meeting, that is the top priority.)

Lars
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4367 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/f0bcd797/attachment.bin>

From: markus at mhof.com (Markus Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:21:27 -0400
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

On 5/23/2011 7:27 AM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
> Milestones
>
> ----------
>
> The ICNRG will not work along a complete list of milestones, but
> will be set to meet the following starting point, intermediate and
> potential long-term goals:
>
> 1. As a starting point the ICNRG will produce a document that
> describes the main concepts and research challenges in depth.

What about including a summary of the expected benefits of ICN, i.e. 
first describe the *problem* to be solved in *quantifiable* terms, then 
describe the main concepts and continue on to the research challenges.

Far too often do we in research work on solutions just to struggle later 
on with the justification of the problem they solve. Or is the problem 
ICN will solve not yet quantifiable?

If sufficient work on the problem statement has already been done, then 
a brief summary with references might suffice. But a clearly defined and 
convincing problem statement will go a long way, IMHO.

Cheers,
   Markus

From: stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Farrell)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:19:11 +0100
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>	<[email-masked]>	<[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

FWIW, my experience with DTNRG is that having a community of
interested and active participants is much more important than
the charter text, which is mainly (and properly:-) ignored
once the RG is humming along nicely.

Of course YMMV, but since its supposed to be research we
shouldn't get too hung up on getting a totally perfect
charter.

S.

From: volker.hilt at alcatel-lucent.com (Volker Hilt)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:16:16 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>	<[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

The main goal for the ICNRG seems rather broad: "The main objective of 
the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN research ..." The subsequent 
goals are much more specific and helpful. In particular the second goals 
seems to be key to the RG. Maybe we can simply skip the first goal all 
together.

Thanks,

Volker

On 5/24/2011 2:41 PM, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
> Hi Paulo,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. Please my some comments inline.
>
>> Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work proposed
>> to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first objective
>> to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN
>> research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that
>> are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."
>
> OK, I agree.
>
>> As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more
>> precise, including some examples in order to avoid misunderstandings..
>> I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for new
>> services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for instance in
>> the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational,
>> storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the analysis of
>> the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-
>> services and Internet-of-connected-objects.
>
> Here, I really disagree. We did not want to create the notion of different "Internets", i.e., Information-Centric, Internet-of-Services, Internet-of-Things etc. The message is that we want to assess ICN's applicability as a general Internet technology ("Internet at large").
>
>> I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than
>> simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to prove
>> the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios. Given
>> more importance to implementations is inline with the other mentioned
>> objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN
>> testbeds for performing experiments with running code."
>
> Right, so IMO that aspect is already covered. We also said "work that is based on implementation and simulation experiences will be given preference.".
>
>> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does
>> not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the
>> following sentence...
>>
>> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework
>> for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols
>> for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN
>> architecture with large applicability."
>>
>> ... to replace the following two sentences:
>>
>> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across
>> different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future
>> ICN architecture."
>> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common
>> protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for
>> standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF
>> protocols."
>
> OK, got your point. It's true that "form the basis of a future ICN architecture" can be misinterpreted.
>
> Here, we wanted to strike a balance: it's true that *system architecture* work is not the IETF's core business. However, for an IRTF research group, we expect some architecture work to be required, e.g., to find out about common core elements that you need to agree on (for later protocol specifications etc.). For example, RFC 4838 is a good example of architecture work that describes fundamental architecture concepts for DTN, which has been a good basis for subsequent DTNRG work on the Bundle Protocol spec.
>
> Will think of a better formulation.
>
>
>>
>>
>> B) ICNRG Milestones
>>
>> The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and research
>> challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to describe
>> an ICN architecture.
>>
>> What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned before.
>> So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the
>> identified main research challenges and the analysis of different
>> approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN,
>> aiming to have high applicability".
>>
>> I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "...
>> long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN architecture.. "
>> since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of saying
>> that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say
>> that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN architecture
>> based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the ICNRG.
>
> OK, we have to remember that this is not an IETF WG charter. For a research group, that is really highly contribution-driven, we should allow some flexibility. From that perspective, I think it would be better not promise delivering guidelines to devise an architecture. If course, that would not keep the WG from doing that, if people are interested.
>
>> Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the
>> applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential
>> standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG
>
> Again, normally "yes" for a tightly controlled activity, but for a research group, I rather see our contribution in advancing ICN and offering the result to the community. I would not like to have a milestone on that.
>
> Thanks again for the comments!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Paulo
>>
>>
>> On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this
>> draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin
>> Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has
>> commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first
>> positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
>>> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still
>> room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please
>> feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
>>> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF
>> Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting.
>>> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF
>> meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there,
>> or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might
>> have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very
>> much appreciated.
>>>
>>> 	B?rje&  Dirk
>>>
>>> <Draft-ICN-RG-
>> Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
>> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics
>> Systems and Technologies (SITI)
>> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
>> University Lusofona, Portugal
>> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
>> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
>> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icn-interest mailing list
>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

From: volker.hilt at alcatel-lucent.com (Volker Hilt)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:03:38 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

B?rje, Dirk,

I think the charter proposal looks good and is getting ready for 
distribution to irtf-discuss at irtf.org

As for a f2f meeting, I'd strongly suggest to hold the meeting during 
the week of the IETF. I believe that the attendance in the week before 
the IETF will be substantially lower than during the IETF week (despite 
conflicts that may occur).

Thanks,

Volker

On 5/23/2011 1:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this
> draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin
> Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has
> commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first
> positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert. But this does not
> mean that this charter is ready. There is still room for improvement,
> e.g. good research issues to be added. Please feel free to contribute
> to the discussion on this mailing list(s). At the next IETF meeting
> we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be
> side meeting. The side meeting could either be held in the week
> before the IETF meeting, with the problem that interested people
> might not yet be there, or during the IETF week, with the problem
> that interested people might have other conflicting meetings. Any
> feedback on this dilemma is very much appreciated.
>
> B?rje&  Dirk
>

From: Dirk.Kutscher at neclab.eu (Dirk Kutscher)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:41:35 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Paulo,

Thanks for the suggestions. Please my some comments inline.

> Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work proposed
> to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first objective
> to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN
> research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that
> are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."

OK, I agree.

> As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more
> precise, including some examples in order to avoid misunderstandings..
> I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for new
> services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for instance in
> the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational,
> storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the analysis of
> the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-
> services and Internet-of-connected-objects.

Here, I really disagree. We did not want to create the notion of different "Internets", i.e., Information-Centric, Internet-of-Services, Internet-of-Things etc. The message is that we want to assess ICN's applicability as a general Internet technology ("Internet at large").
 
> I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than
> simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to prove
> the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios. Given
> more importance to implementations is inline with the other mentioned
> objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN
> testbeds for performing experiments with running code."

Right, so IMO that aspect is already covered. We also said "work that is based on implementation and simulation experiences will be given preference.".
 
> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does
> not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the
> following sentence...
> 
> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework
> for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols
> for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN
> architecture with large applicability."
> 
> ... to replace the following two sentences:
> 
> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across
> different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future
> ICN architecture."
> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common
> protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for
> standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF
> protocols."

OK, got your point. It's true that "form the basis of a future ICN architecture" can be misinterpreted.

Here, we wanted to strike a balance: it's true that *system architecture* work is not the IETF's core business. However, for an IRTF research group, we expect some architecture work to be required, e.g., to find out about common core elements that you need to agree on (for later protocol specifications etc.). For example, RFC 4838 is a good example of architecture work that describes fundamental architecture concepts for DTN, which has been a good basis for subsequent DTNRG work on the Bundle Protocol spec.

Will think of a better formulation.

> 
> 
> B) ICNRG Milestones
> 
> The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and research
> challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to describe
> an ICN architecture.
> 
> What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned before.
> So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the
> identified main research challenges and the analysis of different
> approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN,
> aiming to have high applicability".
> 
> I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "...
> long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN architecture.. "
> since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of saying
> that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say
> that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN architecture
> based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the ICNRG.

OK, we have to remember that this is not an IETF WG charter. For a research group, that is really highly contribution-driven, we should allow some flexibility. From that perspective, I think it would be better not promise delivering guidelines to devise an architecture. If course, that would not keep the WG from doing that, if people are interested.

> Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the
> applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential
> standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG

Again, normally "yes" for a tightly controlled activity, but for a research group, I rather see our contribution in advancing ICN and offering the result to the community. I would not like to have a milestone on that.

Thanks again for the comments!

Best regards,

Dirk

 
> 
> Cheers
> Paulo
> 
> 
> On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
> 
> > Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this
> draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin
> Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has
> commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first
> positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
> > But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still
> room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please
> feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
> > At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF
> Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting.
> > The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF
> meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there,
> or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might
> have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very
> much appreciated.
> >
> > 	B?rje & Dirk
> >
> > <Draft-ICN-RG-
> Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
> > Icn-interest mailing list
> > Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> > https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
> Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics
> Systems and Technologies (SITI)
> Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
> University Lusofona, Portugal
> paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
> http://siti.ulusofona.pt
> Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

From: martin.vigoureux at alcatel-lucent.com (Martin Vigoureux)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:33:07 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello Paulo,

Le 24/05/2011 13:55, Paulo Mendes a ?crit :
> Hi Borje and Dirk
>
> I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the following sentence...
>
> "The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN architecture with large applicability."
>
> ... to replace the following two sentences:
>
> "The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future ICN architecture."
>
> "The intention is that one result from this work could be a common protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF protocols."

In turn, I would be careful with the statement "IETF/IRTF does not 
standardize architectures" :-)
It all depends on what one reads in "architecture".
Note also that the charter does not say that an architecture will be 
standardized.
I think the text is fine.

best regards,
martin

From: martin.vigoureux at alcatel-lucent.com (Martin Vigoureux)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:56:01 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello Holger,

thanks for your comments.
On the energy savings addition:
Is the theoretical energy efficiency you mention a design goal for the 
ICNs or a collateral feature that we would like to evaluate?

regards,
martin

Le 24/05/2011 09:45, Holger Karl a ?crit :
>
> Hello,
>
> thanks, very good!
>
> I took the liberty to make some changes - attached find a new version as
> well as a diff.
>
> Questions:
> * I do not understand the sentence: "where ubiquitous replication and
> dynamic emergence of eligible object copies for access transactions are
> the norm." ??
>
> * Why is simulation work specifically given preference? I understand
> preference for implementation, but signaling out simulation work over
> analytic results seems arbitrary?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Holger
>

From: paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt (Paulo Mendes)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:55:35 +0100
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Borje and Dirk

I would like to provide the following comments in what concerns the ICNRG objectives and milestones:

A) ICNRG objectives

Since the list of research areas is not fully analyzed (work proposed to be done as first milestone) I suggest to change the first objective to "The main objective of the ICNRG is to advance the state of ICN research in AT LEAST the mentioned areas, focusing on solutions that are relevant for evolving the Internet at large."

As for the expression "Internet at large" I would be a little more precise, including some examples in order to avoid misunderstandings.. I would suggest "... Internet at large, including the support for new services and operation into disruptive scenarios based for instance in the present of a considerable number of low-capacity (computational, storage) devices". The idea is to keep as an objective the analysis of the interaction of information-centric networking with Internet-of-services and Internet-of-connected-objects.

I would put more emphasis to work based on implementations than simulations.. Simulations should be pointed out as acceptable to prove the feasibility of proposed solutions in large-scale scenarios. Given more importance to implementations is inline with the other mentioned objective of ICNRG "The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN testbeds for performing experiments with running code."

I would be careful with the word "architecture" since IETF/IRTF does not standardize architectures. Hence I would propose to use the following sentence...

"The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework for information-centric networking, aiming to: i) identify protocols for standardization, which may or may not re; ii) support an ICN architecture with large applicability." 

... to replace the following two sentences:

"The ICNRG will identify key ICN architecture invariants across different specific approaches which could form the basis of a future ICN architecture."

"The intention is that one result from this work could be a common protocol framework that can be used to identify protocols for standardization. These protocols may or may not re-use existing IETF protocols."

B) ICNRG Milestones

The charter has milestones to describe the main concepts and research challenges, to provide a survey of different approaches and to describe an ICN architecture.

What is missing here is the common protocol framework mentioned before. So I'll add the following milestone as third one: "Based on the identified main research challenges and the analysis of different approaches, ICNRG will devise a common protocol framework for ICN, aiming to have high applicability".

I would re-write the third ICNRG milestone, since saying that "... long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN architecture.. " since a little strange to see within IETF/IRTF work. Instead of saying that the goal will describe an architecture, I would suggest to say that the group will described guidelines to device an ICN architecture based on the common protocol framework to be devised within the ICNRG.

Somewhere in this process we should have a milestone to check the applicability of ICN, aiming to check our inline with potential standardization effort is the work to be devised in the ICNRG

Cheers
Paulo

On May 23, 2011, at 12:27 PM, B?rje Ohlman wrote:

> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting. 
> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there, or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very much appreciated.
> 
> 	B?rje & Dirk
> 
> <Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt>_______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

-------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Mendes, Ph.D
Scientific Director for Innovation of the Research Unit in Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
University Lusofona, Portugal
paulo.mendes at ulusofona.pt
http://siti.ulusofona.pt
Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006

From: Borje.Ohlman at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6rje_Ohlman?=)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:49:45 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] [Sail-poet] Fwd:  Draft ICN RG Charter
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Holger,

Thanks for your quick and constructive response.

On 24 maj 2011, at 09.41, Holger Karl wrote:
> Questions: 
> * I do not understand the sentence: "where ubiquitous replication and dynamic emergence of eligible object copies for access transactions are the norm." ?? 
I agree that can be formulated in a less obscure way...
Will do.

> * Why is simulation work specifically given preference? I understand preference for implementation, but signaling out simulation work over analytic results seems arbitrary? 
Good point.

	B?rje

> 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Holger 
> 
> <Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt>
>  
> <diff-file>
>  
> <diff.pdf>
> 
> On 23.05.2011, at 13:28, B?rje Ohlman wrote:
> 
>> FYI,
>> 	B?rje
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: B?rje Ohlman <borje.ohlman at ericsson.com>
>>> Date: 23 maj 2011 13.27.30 CEST
>>> To: "icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de" <icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de>, "irtf-discuss at irtf.org" <irtf-discuss at irtf.org>
>>> Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
>>> Reply-To: "icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de" <icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de>
>>> 
>>> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
>>> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
>>> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting. 
>>> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there, or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 	B?rje & Dirk
>>> 
>> <Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Icn-interest mailing list
>>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sail-poet mailing list
>> Sail-poet at verkstad.net
>> https://mail.verkstad.net/mailman/listinfo/sail-poet
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Prof. Dr. Holger Karl
> Computer Networks group - http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/ag-karl/
> Chairman of the board of the 
> Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing - http://wwwcs.upb.de/pc2/
> Universit?t Paderborn
> Tel.: (05251) 60-5375 FAX: (05251)60-5377
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sail-poet mailing list
> Sail-poet at verkstad.net
> https://mail.verkstad.net/mailman/listinfo/sail-poet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/5f495344/attachment.htm>

From: hkarl at mail.uni-paderborn.de (Holger Karl)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:45:19 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello, 

thanks, very good! 

I took the liberty to make some changes - attached find a new version as well as a diff. 

Questions: 
* I do not understand the sentence: "where ubiquitous replication and dynamic emergence of eligible object copies for access transactions are the norm." ?? 

* Why is simulation work specifically given preference? I understand preference for implementation, but signaling out simulation work over analytic results seems arbitrary? 

Best, 

Holger 

 

On 23.05.2011, at 13:28, B?rje Ohlman wrote:

> FYI,
> 	B?rje
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: B?rje Ohlman <borje.ohlman at ericsson.com>
>> Date: 23 maj 2011 13.27.30 CEST
>> To: "icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de" <icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de>, "irtf-discuss at irtf.org" <irtf-discuss at irtf.org>
>> Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
>> Reply-To: "icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de" <icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de>
>> 
>> Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
>> But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
>> At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting. 
>> The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there, or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very much appreciated.
>> 
>> 	B?rje & Dirk
>> 
> <Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icn-interest mailing list
>> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
>> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sail-poet mailing list
> Sail-poet at verkstad.net
> https://mail.verkstad.net/mailman/listinfo/sail-poet

---
Prof. Dr. Holger Karl
Computer Networks group - http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/ag-karl/
Chairman of the board of the 
Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing - http://wwwcs.upb.de/pc2/
Universit?t Paderborn
Tel.: (05251) 60-5375 FAX: (05251)60-5377

--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

_______________________________________________
Sail-poet mailing list
Sail-poet at verkstad.net
https://mail.verkstad.net/mailman/listinfo/sail-poet

---
Prof. Dr. Holger Karl
Computer Networks group - http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/ag-karl/
Chairman of the board of the 
Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing - http://wwwcs.upb.de/pc2/
Universit?t Paderborn
Tel.: (05251) 60-5375 FAX: (05251)60-5377

--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0005.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: diff-file
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 10679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0006.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: diff.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51512 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110524/ea3a66ec/attachment-0007.htm>

From: borje.ohlman at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6rje_Ohlman?=)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 13:27:30 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Draft ICN RG Charter
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Here is a proposal for a charter for an ICN RG. In producing this draft we have had great help from Volker Hilt, Lixia Zhang, Martin Vigoureux, Joerg Ott, Stephen Farrell and Bengt Ahlgren who has commented and made proposals for improvements. We also got some first positive feedback from the IRTF chair Lars Eggert.
But this does not mean that this charter is ready. There is still room for improvement, e.g. good research issues to be added. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on this mailing list(s).
At the next IETF meeting we will present the proposal at the IRTF Open Meeting and an RG-to-be side meeting. 
The side meeting could either be held in the week before the IETF meeting, with the problem that interested people might not yet be there, or during the IETF week, with the problem that interested people might have other conflicting meetings. Any feedback on this dilemma is very much appreciated.

	B?rje & Dirk

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Draft-ICN-RG-Charter.txt
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110523/d2f6d782/attachment.txt>

From: jthornton at parc.com (Jim Thornton)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:35:13 PDT
Subject: [Icn-interest] CCNx Community Meeting Call for Participation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

A deadline reminder with slight date change:

--------------------------------
REMINDER and ** DATE CHANGE ** ? Submission deadline May 16 for CCNxCon 
? CCNx Community Meeting

Please send email to submissions at ccnx.org by May 16 (next Monday!) with 
information about a topic you could present at the CCNx Community 
Meeting in September.

We have moved the submission date by one day to May 16 so it is a 
weekday and to avoid the ITC 23 acceptance notification date.  If you 
are affected by ITC dates and will have trouble getting a submission to 
us because of that, please just send us an email about the situation. 
Feel free as well to submit something now with a note if it is 
conditional on ITC in some way.

We don't need a lot of information, so this is not a large writing task. 
Even a few sentences of abstract in an email would be very helpful. 
Since this CCNxCon is not a peer-reviewed scientific
publication venue, you are welcome to propose a presentation of work 
that has been (or will have been) published or presented elsewhere prior 
to the meeting.

As a reminder, what we are looking for in email submissions by May 16 is:

? Abstract of information or demonstration you could present during the 
meeting (1 short paragraph max).  If there are multiple distinct topics 
you could present, please include separate abstracts clearly distinguished.

? Note if your ability to attend is conditional on receiving travel support.

Submission address: submissions at ccnx.org

Please forward this note to colleagues who may be interested.

Thank you