Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
From: william.d.ivancic at nasa.gov (William D. Ivancic)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:02:23 -0400

Dirk,  Maybe premature was a poor choice of words.  The presentation
given did not appear to be able to answer some key questions to the
satisfaction of the attendees (or at least some of them):

What would be the goal of the IRTF research group?
Why an IRTF research group?  Why not formulation outside the IRTF?

My understanding is that IRTF research should have some potential path
to use ideas and concepts and perhaps, but not necessarily, protocols
within the IETF. I think they are items there ( and I have the sense
others do as well).  However, this was not well articulated.  

Hence, premature in that it appears the goals are not currently clear
nor the need to be an IRTF research group.  I think this will solidify
quickly after your next set of meetings.

- Will

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 17:53 -0500, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
> Will,
> 
> Thanks again for the feedback. Couple of points I would like to comment on:
> 
> 1) Many projects
> 
> It occurs to me that -- compared to other IRTF efforts -- we are in a situation that there is already a relatively large community that considers itself as doing something in the ICN area. That's quite different from a small group of people trying to attract people around a specific topic -- where the problem space has not been explored yet.
> 
> What's normally a good thing, having a large community, turns out to be an issue if there is fear about convergence, beauty contests etc.
> 
> The reference to the different projects/approaches that we had at the meeting was in fact merely intended to point out that there is a community, not to suggest that the research work should be centered around these approaches (let alone convergence them). It's strange that this impression has been made -- but apparently that was the case.
>  
> One thing to consider though is that there are quite many organizations behind those projects. Nevertheless, for a RG, what you really need is individuals who want to come out of their specific organization/project box and contribute. The organization/projects are helpful in a sense that they provide funding etc. -- but you need individuals who want to collaborate.
> 
> 
> 2) Prematurity
> 
> I would personally rather avoid talking about prematurity of people's activities in the area. Moreover, I don't think that this a valid argument at all. We have different research groups in the IRTF, and many of them started exploring a field at an early time. For ICN, we have different projects, they have released papers, software etc -- we have a fairly good understanding of the problems.
> 
> It's certainly too early to standardize anything -- nobody proposed that.
> 
> 3) Too much money at stake
> 
> I can understand the concern -- in some standards bodies we have seen topics (related to major telecom business for example) that made many companies jump on something that could have benefitted from a more careful development.
> 
> My view on this is that, if it turns out to be true that there is significant interest in the industry, waiting is not a particularly good strategy. This interest could then move the topic out of research much faster than one might like to see. There are standard bodies that are always looking for new topics...
> 
> Instead, I do think that an RG could help keeping this topic in a community that does the research right and is also aware of the issues related to Internet evolution, large-scale deployability etc.
> 
> 4) What now
> 
> In the planning group for the side meeting we had developed a relatively detailed charter (maybe a bit unusual for RG proposals). I think the intention with that was to demonstrate the potential for persistent activity -- however it seems that this was too ambitious and led to too many concerns for some people.
> 
> Since many people really seem to be interested in this activity, we could assess whether this interest can support an RG activity that is a bit less ambitious and focuses on topics such as detailed problem statements, exchange of research and experiment results in a first step. Feedback on this would be welcome.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dirk
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: icn-interest-bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de [mailto:icn-interest-
> > bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de] On Behalf Of William D. Ivancic
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:01 PM
> > To: icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> > Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
> > 
> > Hello, I was at the informal BOF yesterday, but sat silently and
> > listened.  I thought I would provide my perspective on what I
> > experienced and some comments/recommendations.......

From: acaro at bbn.com (Armando Caro)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:37:40 -0400
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

On 7/28/11 6:53 PM, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
> Since many people really seem to be interested in this activity, we could assess whether this interest can support an RG activity that is a bit less ambitious and focuses on topics such as detailed problem statements, exchange of research and experiment results in a first step. Feedback on this would be welcome.

I like the idea of an RG that serves as a group of researchers working 
on a common/similar set of problems that get together on a semi-regular 
basis to informally discuss and share ideas, issues, results, progress, 
etc. I think it would be useful in that it could be less formal than 
conferences/workshops in that you don't necessarily need baked ideas or 
results to present or participate.

On convergence... Even if we have no intention of converging ideas, 
there is a risk of it happening unintentionally. Once I-Ds and RFCs 
start popping up, people tend to feel like they need to adhere to those 
documents. If someone discusses an approach to solving a problem, people 
are likely to ask why not take the approach in an existing draft/RFC. 
I've seen this happen in at least one other RG that was not ready for 
convergence or protocol stabilization.

I don't have a solution, but one suggestion is that we insist that all 
documents be categorized as "Informational" and not "Experimental". Only 
when the RG officially decides that it is ready to begin converging 
ideas that we label documents as "Experimental". This could help.

Armando

From: Dirk.Kutscher at neclab.eu (Dirk Kutscher)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:53:19 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
In-Reply-To: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Will,

Thanks again for the feedback. Couple of points I would like to comment on:

1) Many projects

It occurs to me that -- compared to other IRTF efforts -- we are in a situation that there is already a relatively large community that considers itself as doing something in the ICN area. That's quite different from a small group of people trying to attract people around a specific topic -- where the problem space has not been explored yet.

What's normally a good thing, having a large community, turns out to be an issue if there is fear about convergence, beauty contests etc.

The reference to the different projects/approaches that we had at the meeting was in fact merely intended to point out that there is a community, not to suggest that the research work should be centered around these approaches (let alone convergence them). It's strange that this impression has been made -- but apparently that was the case.
 
One thing to consider though is that there are quite many organizations behind those projects. Nevertheless, for a RG, what you really need is individuals who want to come out of their specific organization/project box and contribute. The organization/projects are helpful in a sense that they provide funding etc. -- but you need individuals who want to collaborate.

2) Prematurity

I would personally rather avoid talking about prematurity of people's activities in the area. Moreover, I don't think that this a valid argument at all. We have different research groups in the IRTF, and many of them started exploring a field at an early time. For ICN, we have different projects, they have released papers, software etc -- we have a fairly good understanding of the problems.

It's certainly too early to standardize anything -- nobody proposed that.

3) Too much money at stake

I can understand the concern -- in some standards bodies we have seen topics (related to major telecom business for example) that made many companies jump on something that could have benefitted from a more careful development.

My view on this is that, if it turns out to be true that there is significant interest in the industry, waiting is not a particularly good strategy. This interest could then move the topic out of research much faster than one might like to see. There are standard bodies that are always looking for new topics...

Instead, I do think that an RG could help keeping this topic in a community that does the research right and is also aware of the issues related to Internet evolution, large-scale deployability etc.

4) What now

In the planning group for the side meeting we had developed a relatively detailed charter (maybe a bit unusual for RG proposals). I think the intention with that was to demonstrate the potential for persistent activity -- however it seems that this was too ambitious and led to too many concerns for some people.

Since many people really seem to be interested in this activity, we could assess whether this interest can support an RG activity that is a bit less ambitious and focuses on topics such as detailed problem statements, exchange of research and experiment results in a first step. Feedback on this would be welcome.

Thanks,

Dirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: icn-interest-bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de [mailto:icn-interest-
> bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de] On Behalf Of William D. Ivancic
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:01 PM
> To: icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
> 
> Hello, I was at the informal BOF yesterday, but sat silently and
> listened.  I thought I would provide my perspective on what I
> experienced and some comments/recommendations.
> 
> First, Are there any meeting notes and will they be distributed?  I
> have
> some colleagues that are interested.
> 
> Perhaps I should give some background.  I am a United States government
> employee.  I work for NASA at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland Ohio.
> I have done a lot of work in network mobility and getting Internet
> technology in space.  I also have worked on Delay Tolerant Networking
> and have seen DTN concepts for storage and retrieval of information. I
> am currently working on the Saratoga transport protocol. I also work on
> Earth Science technology and get much of my funding from the Earth
> Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems
> Technology.
> 
> Point 1, it appears that many groups are working this area and none are
> mature.  My senses from the room (body language, silence, a few
> comments
> and such) is that the goals and purpose of and IRTF research group are
> unclear at this time and is the need.  I thing the suggestion that all
> off (or most of) these groups come together for a two day workshop and
> present to each other what they are doing and their approaches.  From
> than the groups may fine some common areas that may make sense for an
> IRTF research group to work on.  NAMING may be one.  Until some common
> items are identified, I think an IRTF research group is premature.
> 
> Point 2: I agree with the comment that the is a lot of money is at
> stake
> in information centric networking.  If you start an IRTF group
> prematurely, you may find some large corporations pushing their
> solutions and limiting the true research.  I think that is highly
> probable.
> 
> Regarding Naming of Object.  The Geospactial community has this problem
> and NASA does regarding sensor data.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Geospatial_Consortium
> 
> I believe the problems are similar to storing data on the net.  These
> groups are concerned with discovery, information integrity, as well a
> adding metadata to understand what types of processing have been done
> to
> the original data sets as well as what corrections may have been done
> to
> the original data.  There may be something to be learned from these
> groups.
> 
> Finally, be careful to not converge on a solution to early and be open
> to alternatives solutions.  This is research.
> 
> - Will Ivancic
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

From: Borje.Ohlman at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6rje_Ohlman?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:33:31 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] ICNRG side meeting minutes and next steps
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Minutes from the ICNrg meeting are available at the ICN Wiki: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/icnrg

The meeting was very well attended both by people from established ICN research projects and from the wider IRTF/IETF community. At the meeting there was quite a lot of discussion on the best approach for forming and ICN RG. In addition to positive and constructive comments there was a concern from a few people that from their perspective it was premature to form an ICN RG. 

Next steps will include a follow up discussion at the upcoming SIGCOMM conference, the plan is to have a meeting at some evening during the week.
For the next IETF meeting in Taipei a technical workshop is being planned for the Saturday before the IETF week.

	B?rje & Dirk

From: jo at netlab.tkk.fi (Joerg Ott)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:58:32 +0300
Subject: [Icn-interest] ICN BOF slides  - security
In-Reply-To: <1311860590.10959.35.camel@groundstation>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation> <[email-masked]> <1311860590.10959.35.camel@groundstation>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Just a nit: There are no BOFs in the IRTF.

Joerg

On 28.07.2011 16:43, William D. Ivancic wrote:
> It looks like the BOF slides are available on the IRTF wiki - see
> attachments:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/icnrg
>
>
>
>> From the security section of Dirk's slides
>
> "Objects can be replicated, distributed without owner control"
>
> I general comment that I strongly believe MUST be handled if you ever
> want serious deployment.  The solution MUST provide a method for an
> owner of the object to control distribution.  I believe failure to do so
> will be a non-starter.  (That solution may be outside the base
> architecture/protocol, but an owner of data MUST have a mechanism to
> control distribution.)
>
> For example, consider electronic books that you can download/checkout
> from the library.  The content is only valid for some specific time such
> as 2 or 3 weeks.  Libraries must buy multiple copies of electronic books
> and can only distribute as many copies as they purchased.  A library
> cannot buy just one copy and make it available to the world.
>
> It is a copyright/ownership issue.
>
> - Will
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest
>

From: william.d.ivancic at nasa.gov (William D. Ivancic)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:43:10 -0400
Subject: [Icn-interest] ICN BOF slides  - security
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <1311860590.10959.35.camel@groundstation>

It looks like the BOF slides are available on the IRTF wiki - see
attachments:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/icnrg

>From the security section of Dirk's slides

"Objects can be replicated, distributed without owner control"

I general comment that I strongly believe MUST be handled if you ever
want serious deployment.  The solution MUST provide a method for an
owner of the object to control distribution.  I believe failure to do so
will be a non-starter.  (That solution may be outside the base
architecture/protocol, but an owner of data MUST have a mechanism to
control distribution.)

For example, consider electronic books that you can download/checkout
from the library.  The content is only valid for some specific time such
as 2 or 3 weeks.  Libraries must buy multiple copies of electronic books
and can only distribute as many copies as they purchased.  A library
cannot buy just one copy and make it available to the world.  

It is a copyright/ownership issue.

- Will

From: lixia at cs.ucla.edu (Lixia Zhang)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:05:04 -0700
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
In-Reply-To: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, William D. Ivancic wrote:

> Hello, I was at the informal BOF yesterday, but sat silently and
> listened.  I thought I would provide my perspective on what I
> experienced and some comments/recommendations.
> 
> First, Are there any meeting notes and will they be distributed?  I have
> some colleagues that are interested.
> 
> Perhaps I should give some background.  I am a United States government
> employee.  I work for NASA at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland Ohio.
> I have done a lot of work in network mobility and getting Internet
> technology in space.  I also have worked on Delay Tolerant Networking
> and have seen DTN concepts for storage and retrieval of information. I
> am currently working on the Saratoga transport protocol. I also work on
> Earth Science technology and get much of my funding from the Earth
> Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems
> Technology.
> 
> Point 1, it appears that many groups are working this area and none are
> mature.  My senses from the room (body language, silence, a few comments
> and such) is that the goals and purpose of and IRTF research group are
> unclear at this time and is the need.  I thing the suggestion that all
> off (or most of) these groups come together for a two day workshop and
> present to each other what they are doing and their approaches.  From
> than the groups may fine some common areas that may make sense for an
> IRTF research group to work on.  NAMING may be one.  Until some common
> items are identified, I think an IRTF research group is premature.  
> 
> Point 2: I agree with the comment that the is a lot of money is at stake
> in information centric networking.  If you start an IRTF group
> prematurely, you may find some large corporations pushing their
> solutions and limiting the true research.  I think that is highly
> probable.
> 
> Regarding Naming of Object.  The Geospactial community has this problem
> and NASA does regarding sensor data.  
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Geospatial_Consortium
> 
> I believe the problems are similar to storing data on the net.  These
> groups are concerned with discovery, information integrity, as well a
> adding metadata to understand what types of processing have been done to
> the original data sets as well as what corrections may have been done to
> the original data.  There may be something to be learned from these
> groups.
> 
> Finally, be careful to not converge on a solution to early and be open
> to alternatives solutions.  This is research.  
> 
> - Will Ivancic

Hi Will,

A great summary of the meeting and I agree with your two points.
And just to add a bit to your above comments: It seems to me that until different approaches come to a certain stage that we have gone thru at least some implementation cycle and have some way to gauge the design tradeoffs, to get us a basic understanding of the major issues and design choices, we are really not ready to talk about comparing different designs, as that'd just be comparing abstract ideas -- one could argue to the death without fully understand the real issue.

I would also like to add a bit clarification about having an RG vs openness: RG timing is an important decision but that has no relation to openness. As Kathie put it nicely yesterday at the meeting, all the architectural design efforts are meant to be open research and collaborations, this is particularly true for the NDN effort,
(1) there are papers, talks, and most importantly prototype running code out there for people to explore (http://named-data.net/, http://www.ccnx.org/)
and 
(2) the NDN team truly wants (and need!) community to join in and help out, the amount of work to be done is both daunting and exciting.

Lixia

From: Kathleen.Nichols at huawei.com (Kathleen Nichols)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:51:18 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
In-Reply-To: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi, Will, 
This is a really nice, thoughtful posting. I am one of those who thinks it is
probably too early for the ICN RG, or at least too early for the topics/goals
suggested at this point. There may be something appropriate to do now, but
I'd like to hear a proposal for that.

I also like your idea of a two-day workshop. Although as Dave Oran rightly
pointed out, there are lots of meetings, there might be room for something
with a nice, informal feeling and no expectations as to the "product" of the
meeting. I believe I could get my company to host such a meeting in the
San Jose meeting, if that's agreeable.

I'm running a program at Huawei/Futurewei to work on ICN as a basis for the
future internet. Although our project that is based on ccnx is underway, we also
plan a project that would perhaps use NetInf and/or Pursuit and that would 
be based out of our European Research Center (yes, positions are open, but
please don't flood me with resumes as we have an HR dept for that). So we'd
be very interested in an exchange on these topics. We are extremely interested
in multi-site testbeds and I have pushed Lixia on NDN connectivity, which she
assures me will happen soon. I think it would be great to hear about options
for connectivity to the Pursuit or Netinf networks at a meeting.

            Kathie

________________________________________
From: icn-interest-bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de [icn-interest-bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de] on behalf of William D. Ivancic [william.d.ivancic at nasa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:01 AM
To: icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments

Hello, I was at the informal BOF yesterday, but sat silently and
listened.  I thought I would provide my perspective on what I
experienced and some comments/recommendations.

First, Are there any meeting notes and will they be distributed?  I have
some colleagues that are interested.

Perhaps I should give some background.  I am a United States government
employee.  I work for NASA at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland Ohio.
I have done a lot of work in network mobility and getting Internet
technology in space.  I also have worked on Delay Tolerant Networking
and have seen DTN concepts for storage and retrieval of information. I
am currently working on the Saratoga transport protocol. I also work on
Earth Science technology and get much of my funding from the Earth
Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems
Technology.

Point 1, it appears that many groups are working this area and none are
mature.  My senses from the room (body language, silence, a few comments
and such) is that the goals and purpose of and IRTF research group are
unclear at this time and is the need.  I thing the suggestion that all
off (or most of) these groups come together for a two day workshop and
present to each other what they are doing and their approaches.  From
than the groups may fine some common areas that may make sense for an
IRTF research group to work on.  NAMING may be one.  Until some common
items are identified, I think an IRTF research group is premature.

Point 2: I agree with the comment that the is a lot of money is at stake
in information centric networking.  If you start an IRTF group
prematurely, you may find some large corporations pushing their
solutions and limiting the true research.  I think that is highly
probable.

Regarding Naming of Object.  The Geospactial community has this problem
and NASA does regarding sensor data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Geospatial_Consortium

I believe the problems are similar to storing data on the net.  These
groups are concerned with discovery, information integrity, as well a
adding metadata to understand what types of processing have been done to
the original data sets as well as what corrections may have been done to
the original data.  There may be something to be learned from these
groups.

Finally, be careful to not converge on a solution to early and be open
to alternatives solutions.  This is research.

- Will Ivancic

_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:22:41 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
In-Reply-To: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
References: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Will,

Thanks for sharing your views. Materials and Notes will be on the IRTF Wiki and posted here, soon. Please give us some time.

Best regards,
Dirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: icn-interest-bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de [mailto:icn-interest-
> bounces at listserv.netlab.nec.de] On Behalf Of William D. Ivancic
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:01 PM
> To: icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
> 
> Hello, I was at the informal BOF yesterday, but sat silently and
> listened.  I thought I would provide my perspective on what I
> experienced and some comments/recommendations.
> 
> First, Are there any meeting notes and will they be distributed?  I
> have
> some colleagues that are interested.
> 
> Perhaps I should give some background.  I am a United States government
> employee.  I work for NASA at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland Ohio.
> I have done a lot of work in network mobility and getting Internet
> technology in space.  I also have worked on Delay Tolerant Networking
> and have seen DTN concepts for storage and retrieval of information. I
> am currently working on the Saratoga transport protocol. I also work on
> Earth Science technology and get much of my funding from the Earth
> Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems
> Technology.
> 
> Point 1, it appears that many groups are working this area and none are
> mature.  My senses from the room (body language, silence, a few
> comments
> and such) is that the goals and purpose of and IRTF research group are
> unclear at this time and is the need.  I thing the suggestion that all
> off (or most of) these groups come together for a two day workshop and
> present to each other what they are doing and their approaches.  From
> than the groups may fine some common areas that may make sense for an
> IRTF research group to work on.  NAMING may be one.  Until some common
> items are identified, I think an IRTF research group is premature.
> 
> Point 2: I agree with the comment that the is a lot of money is at
> stake
> in information centric networking.  If you start an IRTF group
> prematurely, you may find some large corporations pushing their
> solutions and limiting the true research.  I think that is highly
> probable.
> 
> Regarding Naming of Object.  The Geospactial community has this problem
> and NASA does regarding sensor data.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Geospatial_Consortium
> 
> I believe the problems are similar to storing data on the net.  These
> groups are concerned with discovery, information integrity, as well a
> adding metadata to understand what types of processing have been done
> to
> the original data sets as well as what corrections may have been done
> to
> the original data.  There may be something to be learned from these
> groups.
> 
> Finally, be careful to not converge on a solution to early and be open
> to alternatives solutions.  This is research.
> 
> - Will Ivancic
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icn-interest mailing list
> Icn-interest at listserv.netlab.nec.de
> https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

From: william.d.ivancic at nasa.gov (William D. Ivancic)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:01:00 -0400
Subject: [Icn-interest] BOF comments
Message-ID: <1311775260.2106.41.camel@groundstation>

Hello, I was at the informal BOF yesterday, but sat silently and
listened.  I thought I would provide my perspective on what I
experienced and some comments/recommendations.

First, Are there any meeting notes and will they be distributed?  I have
some colleagues that are interested.

Perhaps I should give some background.  I am a United States government
employee.  I work for NASA at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland Ohio.
I have done a lot of work in network mobility and getting Internet
technology in space.  I also have worked on Delay Tolerant Networking
and have seen DTN concepts for storage and retrieval of information. I
am currently working on the Saratoga transport protocol. I also work on
Earth Science technology and get much of my funding from the Earth
Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems
Technology.

Point 1, it appears that many groups are working this area and none are
mature.  My senses from the room (body language, silence, a few comments
and such) is that the goals and purpose of and IRTF research group are
unclear at this time and is the need.  I thing the suggestion that all
off (or most of) these groups come together for a two day workshop and
present to each other what they are doing and their approaches.  From
than the groups may fine some common areas that may make sense for an
IRTF research group to work on.  NAMING may be one.  Until some common
items are identified, I think an IRTF research group is premature.  

Point 2: I agree with the comment that the is a lot of money is at stake
in information centric networking.  If you start an IRTF group
prematurely, you may find some large corporations pushing their
solutions and limiting the true research.  I think that is highly
probable.

Regarding Naming of Object.  The Geospactial community has this problem
and NASA does regarding sensor data.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Geospatial_Consortium

I believe the problems are similar to storing data on the net.  These
groups are concerned with discovery, information integrity, as well a
adding metadata to understand what types of processing have been done to
the original data sets as well as what corrections may have been done to
the original data.  There may be something to be learned from these
groups.

Finally, be careful to not converge on a solution to early and be open
to alternatives solutions.  This is research.  

- Will Ivancic

From: junbi at cernet.edu.cn (Jun Bi)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:28:43 +0800
Subject: [Icn-interest] test
Message-ID: <D727CABC17A5419787CA4A707C976531@junbiVAIOz138>

I am joining the ICN mailing-list.
This is a test message.

Thanks,
Jun Bi
Tsinghua Univ./CERNET
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110725/a20e131f/attachment.htm>

From: Borje.Ohlman at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6rje_Ohlman?=)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:58:49 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] Fwd: [irtf-discuss] Final Agenda: IRTF Open Meeting at IETF-81
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Please note that the time has changed!
It is now on Wednesday!!!

	B?rje

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert at nokia.com>
> Date: 22 juli 2011 16.39.43 CEST
> To: "irtf-discuss at irtf.org" <irtf-discuss at irtf.org>, "irtf-announce at irtf.org" <irtf-announce at irtf.org>, "irsg at irtf.org" <irsg at irtf.org>, "ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
> Subject: [irtf-discuss] Final Agenda: IRTF Open Meeting at IETF-81
> Reply-To: "irtf-discuss at irtf.org" <irtf-discuss at irtf.org>
> 
> Final Agenda
> IRTF Open Meeting
> Quebec City, Canada
> *Wednesday*, July 27, 2011, 9:00 - 11:30 (new time!)
> 
> Slot lengths below indicate presentation+discussion time.
> 
> 
> State of the IRTF
> 	Lars Eggert
> 	10+5 min
> 
> 
> Applied Networking Prize (ANRP) Awards
> 	2x 20+10 min
> 
> 	*** Beichuan Zhang *** for research into ?green? traffic engineering:
> 	GreenTE: Power-Aware Traffic Engineering. Mingui Zhang,
> 	Cheng Yi, Bin Liu and Beichuan Zhang. Proc. IEEE International
> 	Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), pp. 21?30, October 2010.
> 
> 	Abstract: Given the high path redundancy and low link
> 	utilization in today's large networks, one may route traffic
> 	using fewer number of links so that other links can go sleep
> 	to conserve energy. In this work we design a traffic engineering
> 	mechanism that maximizes the number of links to sleep under
> 	certain performance constraints such as link utilization and packet
> 	delay. Using network topologies and traffic data from several
> 	wide-area networks, our evaluation demonstrates that GreenTE is
> 	both feasible and beneficial.
> 
> 	*** Mattia Rossi *** for research into reducing BGP traffic:
> 
> 	A Technique for Reducing BGP Update Announcements through Path
> 	Exploration Damping. Geoff Huston, Mattia Rossi and Grenville
> 	Armitage. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC),
> 	Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1271?1286, October 2010.
> 
> 	Abstract: Path Exploration Damping is intended as a replacement
> 	for MRAI and RFD, the two main mechanisms used in BGP that aim
> 	at a reduction of BGP update churn. This talk explains the
> 	motivation behind PED, outlines the algorithm and provides
> 	insight into experimental results.
> 
> 
> Presentation & discussion of proposals for new IRTF research groups
> 
> 	Network Complexity
> 	Michael Beringer
> 	http://networkcomplexity.org/
> 	10+10 min
> 	
> 	Information-Centric Networking
> 	Dirk Kutscher & B?rje Ohlman
> 	http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/icnrg
> 	10+10 min
> 	
> 	Learning-Capable Communication Networks
> 	Dimitri Papadimitriou  
> 	https://sites.google.com/site/lccngroup/
> 	10+10 min
> 	
> 	If time permits:
> 	
> 	Energy Efficient Communication
> 	Rolf Winter & J?rgen Quittek
> 	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/private/icn-interest/attachments/20110723/7e096716/attachment.htm>

From: Borje.Ohlman at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6rje_Ohlman?=)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:18:34 +0200
Subject: [Icn-interest] ICNRG side meeting @ IETF-81 -- Agenda
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

ICNRG side meeting @ IETF-81

Date: Tuesday 2011-07-26, 13:00 -- 15:00
Location: Room 303AB

Draft Agenda
- Overview and Agenda bashing - B?rje & Dirk [10 min]
- Information-Centric Networking Concepts and Scope -Dirk [30 min]
- ICN Research issues - Joerg Ott [15 min]
- ICNRG charter proposal presentation and discussion  - B?rje [45 min]
- Next Steps [20 min]

For more information see the ICNRG Wiki page:
 - http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/icnrg

You are also most welcome to subscribe to the mailing list:
 - https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/icn-interest

If you are not able to attend the ICNRG side meeting but want to express your support for the forming of an ICN IRTF research group you can do so at the mailing list or directly to us.

    B?rje Ohlman & Dirk Kutscher

============================================

Proposed Charter
------------------------

Background
----------------

Distributing and manipulating named information is a major application in the Internet today. In addition to Web-based content distribution, other distribution technologies (such as P2P and CDN) have emerged and are promoting a communication model of accessing data by name, regardless of origin server location. 

In order to respond to increasing traffic volume in the current Internet for applications such as mobile video and cloud computing, a set of disparate technologies and distribution services are employed that employ caching, replication and content distribution in different specific ways. These approaches are currently deployed in separate silos -- different CDN providers and P2P applications rely on proprietary distribution technologies. It is not possible to uniquely and securely identify named information independent of the distribution channel, and the different distribution approaches are typically implemented as an overlay, leading to unnecessary inefficiency.

Information-centric networking (ICN) is an approach to evolve the Internet infrastructure to directly support this use by introducing uniquely named data as a core Internet principle.  Data becomes independent from location, application, storage, and means of transportation, enabling in-network caching and replication. The expected benefits are improved efficiency, better scalability with respect to information/bandwidth demand and better robustness in challenging communication scenarios. These concepts are known under different terms, including but not limited to: Network of Information (NetInf), Content-Centric Networking (CCN), Named Data Networking (NDN) and Publish/Subscribe Networking.

ICN concepts can be applied to different layers of the protocol stack: name-based data access can be implemented on top of existing IP infrastructure, -- e.g., by providing resource naming, ubiquitous caching and corresponding transport services -- or it can actually be seen as a packet-level inter-networking technology that would incur fundamental changes to Internet routing and forwarding. In summary, ICN is expected to evolve the Internet architecture at different layers.

Research Challenges
------------------------------

Moving the focus from nodes to information objects brings scalability issues to a new level. Currently the Internet is addressing on the order of 10^9 nodes whereas the number of addressable ICN objects is expected to be several orders of magnitude higher. Name-based routing and name resolution have to be designed to scale accordingly, also considering mobility support and disruption tolerance. This is related to the question how objects are actually named, e.g., using flat labels with name/content integrity or more structured, possibly aggregatable names.

Accessing copies of named content enables new data transport concepts, such as receiver-oriented (pull-based) transport protocols. Caches in the network may play an active role in transport sessions, enabling shorter feedback loops and specific transport protocol features in challenged networks, quite different from end-to-end transport as in TCP today. Leveraging the existence of multiple copies of each object enables new transport strategies such as parallel interaction with multiple caches. On the other hand, once a named data object exists in multiple caches, consistent and coherent update semantics and supporting protocols have to be defined, dealing with, e.g., multiple writers updating a named object at the time when only connected via a challenged network.

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 to ICN instead, security/trust/identity functions are bound to the information object themselves, employing signed objects and and ensuring name-data integrity. Moreover, not all objects will be universally accessible, requiring authorization and scoping mechanisms.

The ICN paradigm is also expected to require new interfaces for applications to interact with the network. For example, a new API should let the application developers take advantage of location-independent naming, caching, and multi access functionality in ICN.

It is expected that ICN will require changes to the business, legal and regulatory landscape. Examples include changes to how peering agreements are made in a network that heavily relies on caching. Compensation schemes for user nodes contributing cache space, bandwidth and/or battery for participating in delivery of objects to third parties. The caching of objects also has implications on how the legal framework deals with caching objects in transit: are they regarded as being in the user's possession with respect to copyright and/or other legal violations?

An ICN approach potentially has better energy efficiency than existing approaches has data has to be transported, on average, over shorter distances. While more cache storage has to be powered in the network, even that might be energy-efficient as the cooling load can be better distributed to more, but smaller installations. ICN has the potential to improve relevant metrics like invested energy per user-perceived latency.

Finally, deploying new ICN technology requires a well defined migration path from today's networking technology, avoiding any forklift upgrades or flag days. Migration and inter-working possibilities are also required to foster large-scale experiments and thorough evaluation of ICN concepts and specific concrete approaches. The development of corresponding test-beds and experimentation facilities is considered a very important potential activity area of the ICN RG.

ICNRG Objectives
-------------------------

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.

The ICNRG will provide a forum for exchange and analysis of ICN research ideas and proposals, work that is based on implementation experiences will be given preference.

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.

The ICNRG will investigate components of a common protocol framework for information-centric networking, aiming to identify key ICN architecture invariants across different specific approaches and protocols for future standardization.

The ICNRG will foster the development of ICN testbeds for performing experiments with running code.

The ICNRG will initiate discussions about desirable interfaces to an ICN, as relevant for an application layer, from network management systems, or others.

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.

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 ICN problem statement, the main concepts and research challenges in depth.

2. An an intermediate milestone, the ICNRG will produce a document that provides a survey of different approaches and techniques.

3. Eventual long-term goals would be documents describing an ICN architecture and possible specific (protocol) elements, as well as documents providing recommendations to the IETF regarding transferring ICNRG results to standardization work.

Organization
-----------------

The ICNRG will use an open mailing list (icnrg at irtf.org<mailto:icnrg at irtf.org>) as the main communication vehicle for the group.

Most of the communication inside the ICNRG will be done through use of mailing lists, however, the group will hold regular physical meetings at least once a year in conjunction with IETF meetings. Additional meetings may be held at IETF or other venues, such as in conjunction with related academic conferences.

The ICNRG will produce Informational and Experimental RFCs in order to document the activity of the group and to formalize the outcome of the research topics carried by the group. In addition, such documentation could become input to IETF working groups.

From: Dirk.Kutscher at neclab.eu (Dirk Kutscher)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:37:39 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] ICN side meeting at IETF-81
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Folks,

We have finally received a time slot for the planned ICN side meeting at IETF-81. It will be on Tuesday, July 26th, 13:00-15:00. We originally asked for the second afternoon slot, but since the DECADE WG meeting is now scheduled there as well, we went for this slot now. Naturally, there will be conflicts with other important meeting, for which we apologize.

Room information is still pending -- will announce it as soon as we know. It could be good to assitance the local arrangements people with an indication of how many people would be coming. If you are interested, please send an e-mail to Boerje and me.

More information on the meeting will be coming soon.

Best regards,

Dirk

From: Dirk.Kutscher at neclab.eu (Dirk Kutscher)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:41:32 +0000
Subject: [Icn-interest] Call for participation: ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Information-Centric Networking
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

======================================================================
                         ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on
                      Information-Centric Networking

                             August 19,2011
                          Toronto, ON, Canada

                      http://www.neclab.eu/icn-2011/
======================================================================

                      Call For Participation
                      ----------------------

The development of Information-Centric Networking (ICN -- also
referred to as data centric networking, content centric networking,
networking of information, etc.) concepts is one of the significant
results of different international Future Internet research
activities. In such approaches, the principal paradigm is not
host-to-host communication as in the current Internet
architecture. Instead, an increasing demand for highly scalable and
efficient distribution of content has motivated the development of
architectures that focus on information objects, their properties, and
receiver interest in the network to achieve efficient and reliable
distribution of such objects. Corresponding network architectures can
leverage in-network storage, multiparty communication through
replication and interaction models such as publish-subscribe to
provide general platforms for communication services that are today
only available in dedicated systems such as peer-to-peer overlays and
proprietary content-distribution networks.

Important research topics for ICN include: naming and addressing (how
to name information objects, how to represent location information),
routing and resolution (deciding on how to forward "interest" in
information and actual information objects, whether and how to resolve
information object names to lower layer identifiers during that
process), resource management (implications of in-network caching and
paradigms such as receiver-orientation to resource sharing, congestion
control etc.) and security (privacy, data protection and key
distribution have to be adapted to the new communication models).
This workshop features original contributions on Information-Centric
Networking architecture topics as well as on results from
implementations and experimentation. There will also be a panel
discussion on ICN and future research directions that is supported by
a group of renowned experts in the field.

                      Program Overview
                      ----------------

Session 1: ICN Essentials

   - Ali Ghodsi, Teemu Koponen, Jarno Rajahalme, Pasi Sarolahti and
     Scott Shenker; Naming in Content-Oriented Architectures

   - Matteo D ambrosio, Christian Dannewitz, Holger Karl and Vinicio
     Vercellone; MDHT: A Hierarchical Name Resolution Service for
     Information-centric Networks

   - Christos Tsilopoulos and George Xylomenos; Supporting Diverse
     Traffic Types in Information Centric Networks Somaya Arianfar,
     Teemu Koponen, Scott Shenker and Barath Raghavan; On Preserving
     Privacy in Information-Centric Networks

Session 2: Panel Discussion

   - Bengt Ahlgren, SICS, Sweden
   - Van Jacobsen, PARC, USA
   - Teemu Koponen, ICSI, USA
   - Ramesh Sitaraman, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Akamai, USA
   - Dirk Trossen, University of Cambridge, UK

Session 3: ICN Performance

   - Luca Muscariello, Giovanna Carofiglio and Massimo Gallo;
     Bandwidth and storage sharing performance in information centric
     networking

   - Fredrik Bjurefors, Per Gunningberg, Christian Rohner and Sam
     Tavakoli; Congestion Avoidance in a Data-Centric Opportunistic
     Network

   - Steve Dibenedetto, Christos Papadopoulos and Daniel Massey;
     Routing Policies in Named Data Networking Diego Perino and Matteo
     Varvello; A Reality Check for Content Centric Networking

Session 4: Architecture and Services of ICN

   - Andrea Detti, Nicola Blefari Melazzi, Stefano Salsano and Matteo
     Pomposini; CONET: A Content Centric Inter-Networking Architecture

   - Antonio Carzaniga, Michele Papalini and Alexander Wolf;
     Content-Based Publish/Subscribe Networking and
     Information-Centric Networking

   - Shashank Shanbhag, Nico Schwan, Ivica Rimac and Matteo Varvello;
     SoCCeR: Services over Content-Centric Routing

   - Zhenkai Zhu, Sen Wang, Xu Yang, Van Jacobson and Lixia Zhang;
     ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named Data Networks

                         Technical Program Chairs
                         ------------------------
Dirk Kutscher, NEC Laboratories Europe - Germany
Giacomo Morabito, University of Catania - Italy
Ignacio Solis, PARC - USA

                          Steering Committee
                <icn2011-organizers at listserv.netlab.nec.de>
                -------------------------------------------

Dirk Kutscher, NEC Laboratories Europe -  Germany
Giacomo Morabito, University of Catania - Italy
Boerje Ohlman, Ericsson - Sweden
George C. Polyzos, AUEB - Greece
Ignacio Solis, PARC - USA
Lixia Zhang, UCLA - USA

                      Further Information
                      -------------------

   - http://www.neclab.eu/icn-2011/
   - http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2011/