Subject: [icnrg] Upcoming ICNRG meetings

From: Börje Ohlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:22:07 +0000

As mentioned previously we are planning for an ICNRG interim meeting on the Saturday September 27th in Paris, directly after the ACM ICN-2014 conference (http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2014/). The reason we suggest the Saturday after the conference instead of the Tuesday before is that we want to be able to take the results of the conference into account for our discussions at the interim.
We like to confirm this meeting at the ICNRG meeting here in Toronto later today, so if you have some serious concerns, please raise them on this mailing list *before* the meeting later today.
If there is someone that is willing to host an ICNRG interim in Paris, please let us know!

Regarding the next IETF in November in Honolulu, we are seriously considering not having the ICNRG meet there as Honolulu is a bit out of the way for most people. An alternative could be to have two day ICNRG interim somewhere else during the winter. Please let us know what you think of this proposal. Suggestions for hosting such an interim are most welcome. This is *not* something we need to decide today, this is just to present the idea to you and to invite your feedback.

	ICNRG Chairs/Börje

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:50:54 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Börje,

> Regarding the next IETF in November in Honolulu, we are seriously
> considering not having the ICNRG meet there as Honolulu is a bit out
> of the way for most people. An alternative could be to have two day
> ICNRG interim somewhere else during the winter. Please let us know
> what you think of this proposal. Suggestions for hosting such an
> interim are most welcome. This is *not* something we need to decide
> today, this is just to present the idea to you and to invite your
> feedback.

An interim meeting somewhere else during the winter is more tough to
attend for people who usually attend the IETF as they need to schedule
additional trip.
I prefer to have the ICNRG meeting at Honolulu unless most people
working on ICNRG decide to not go there.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: Cedric Westphal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:01:27 +0000

Hi,

Based on the feedback from the London IETF meeting, we've updated the video over ICN draft. You can find it here:
http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~cedric/papers/draft-video-streaming-over-ICN-July2014.pdf
for now. I'll upload it on the ICNRG wiki and in the IETF tracker system once it reopens.

Best,

C.

---

From: Börje Ohlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:27:49 +0000

The tracker is open, can you please upload it.
Do you have some slides?

	Börje

---

From: Daniel Corujo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:43:50 +0100

Dear all,

Even though this proposal is still under discussion, and considering that there are already pros and cons presented, in the event that another place can be considered, I would like to offer the possibility of having the meeting here in Aveiro, Portugal. We (usually) have very mild Winters and the meeting would be hosted at the University of Aveiro. Please have it under consideration.

Best regards,

Daniel Corujo, Ph.D., Research Fellow
Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal	
http://re.vu/dcorujo
Advanced Telecommunications and Networks Group - http://atnog.av.it.pt
Follow us - @ATNoG_ITAv

On 22 Jul 2014, at 14:50 , Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:05:09 +0000

Hello Börje,

I totally agree with Hitoshi-san, Honolulu is very convenient for many ICNRG participants and it would add difficulty for many attendees to arrange another trip and incur additional expenses.

Regards,

Glenn

---

From: "Dave Oran (oran)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:11:03 +0000

If a large fraction of the ICNRG participants are going to wind up at IETF in Honolulu anyway, then of course it makes more sense to meet there (if we need another meeting this year at all).

On the other hand, if ICNRG participants would be going to Honolulu just to attend and ICNRG meeting, than on balance it may make sense to space the meeting out a bit further from the proposed interim in Paris, be neutral from a travel perspective, and possibly meet in a location more convenient than the center of the Pacific ocean.

Once we get a solid decision on the Paris meeting, I’d suggest we start a doodle poll on the options for the next meeting plan.

DaveO.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:01:38 +0000

I vote we have a meeting at IETF91.

Hawaii is convenient for a few of us (some of Asia and the US West coast).
 If we don¹t hold a meeting we end up creating a chicken and egg problem
since there is no good reason to go if we don¹t have a meeting.  Since
there is obviously a subset of people that will be at IETF no matter what,
we should have the meeting.

We can start a doodle poll if that¹s required.

Maybe a better question is what would we meet about?  From a CCN
perspective we have a lot of stuff we would be happy to present and talk
about, progress is always being made. However, as a group (ICNRG) we
should figure out where we are with respect to our charter.  What are the
ICNRG objectives?  If only we had written them down somewhereŠ
https://irtf.org/icnrg , survey, evaluation, scenarios?

We got criticized (again) about not being highly active.  I assume this is
with respect to drafts and email activity. Should we start thinking about
next steps? Do we continue as we are?Do we need to recharter? Be reborn?
Re-focus?

Nacho

--
Nacho (Ignacio) Solis
Protocol Architect
Senior Research Scientist
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
+1(650)812-4458
[email-masked]

On 7/22/14, 11:11 AM, "Dave Oran (oran)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>If a large fraction of the ICNRG participants are going to wind up at
>IETF in Honolulu anyway, then of course it makes more sense to meet there
>(if we need another meeting this year at all).
>
>On the other hand, if ICNRG participants would be going to Honolulu just
>to attend and ICNRG meeting, than on balance it may make sense to space
>the meeting out a bit further from the proposed interim in Paris, be
>neutral from a travel perspective, and possibly meet in a location more
>convenient than the center of the Pacific ocean.
>
>Once we get a solid decision on the Paris meeting, I¹d suggest we start a
>doodle poll on the options for the next meeting plan.
>
>DaveO.
>
>> I totally agree with Hitoshi-san, Honolulu is very convenient for many
>>ICNRG participants and it would add difficulty for many attendees to
>>arrange another trip and incur additional expenses.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Glenn
>>

---

From: Matthias Waehlisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 00:58:15 +0200

Hi all,

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, [email-masked] wrote:

> We got criticized (again) about not being highly active.  I assume
> this is with respect to drafts and email activity.
>
  honestly, this is not a well-defined metric. I would not deduce 
anything from this. ICNRG is one of the RGs with significant side 
meetings and IRTF meetings - and lively discussions during the meetings. 
I never understood why ICNRG is considered "little activity".

> Should we start thinking about next steps? Do we continue as we are?Do
> we need to recharter? Be reborn? Re-focus?
>
  Maybe, but this should be motivated independently of the slides of the 
IRTF Report.

Cheers
  matthias

-- 
Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
.  Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:[email-masked] .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net

---

From: Cedric Westphal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:36:09 +0000

I pretty much agree with Matthias here. I see a lot of activity in terms of documents being generated in many directions. Just look at how packed the agenda was in Toronto, and in how many directions the group is moving in addition to the baseline/evaluation docs (video, IoT, disaster, management, secure naming, etc). 

# of RFC as a metric has a serious time lag. I don't think there is a concern that ICNRG can't produce RFCs.

Interim meetings are great, and it's good that a lot of the activity happens there, but it is also a barrier of entry for the discussions. So we should at least think about how to get more of the activity that is happening available to everybody. 

C.

-----Original Message-----
From: icnrg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Matthias Waehlisch
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Upcoming ICNRG meetings

Hi all,

Cheers
  matthias

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:39:22 +0000

I didn¹t mean to imply that the IRTF statements were the reason to move
on.  But looking at the charter it seems we¹ve covered a lot of what we
set out to do.

Should we just continue as is?

I do agree that bringing more discussion to the mailing list is good.

Nacho

On 7/31/14, 4:36 PM, "Cedric Westphal" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I pretty much agree with Matthias here. I see a lot of activity in terms
>of documents being generated in many directions. Just look at how packed
>the agenda was in Toronto, and in how many directions the group is moving
>in addition to the baseline/evaluation docs (video, IoT, disaster,
>management, secure naming, etc).
>
>Interim meetings are great, and it's good that a lot of the activity
>happens there, but it is also a barrier of entry for the discussions. So
>we should at least think about how to get more of the activity that is
>happening available to everybody.
>
>C.
>

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:54:47 +0000

Hi,

> next steps? Do we continue as we are?Do we need to recharter? Be reborn?

I think you refer to my plenary slide? That was a bug. 

(I al thinking about getting rid of that slide completely, since it's highly subjective.)

Lars