Subject: [T2TRG] minutes from edge computing side meeting on Nov 15

From: "Dirk Kutscher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:43:39 +0100

Hi all,

I am sharing the minutes of the T2T edge computing side meeting we held 
on Nov 15. *Thanks a lot to Eve Schooler who Kindly took notes at the 
meeting.*

Also thank you, Yong-Geun for presenting your work as a discussion 
starter — and thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion.

My quick summary: we had a good, interactive discussion on “T2T edge 
computing”, i.e., a more distributed, potentially more light-weight 
and pervasive edge computing approach compared to existing frameworks. 
There seems to be sufficient interest and emerging activities in this 
space that would warrant future discussions on this in T2TRG. There is 
definitely some connection/synergies/overlap with the “Beyond Edge 
Computing” work (presented at the T2TRG meeting in Singapore) that we 
should explore further. Also, there are also connection to work in other 
research groups, specifically ICNRG and proposed DINRG. In any case, 
people thought that T2TRG could be a good place to continue the general 
discussion. One specifically useful future activity could be to 
categorize the vastly different use cases (I.e., edge computer for 
small-data-oriented sensor fusion vs. 360 video processing at the edge).

@T2TRG-chairs, please feel free to adopt these minutes to the T2TRG 
datatracker archive.

Best regards,
Dirk

#Thing-to-Thing (T2T) Edge Computing side meeting
IETF-100
Wednesday 11/15, 15:30 to 17:00
Butterworth meeting room
Note taker: Eve Schooler

##Attendees

* Xavier deFoy (InterDigital)
* Younghwan Choi (ETRI)
* Joosang Youn (DZU)
* Georgios Karagiannis (Huawei)
* Eve Schooler (Intel)
* Joerg Ott (TUM)
* Ari Keranen (Ericsson)
* Liang Xia (Huawei)
* Dirk Kutscher (Huawei)
* Debashish Purkayastha (InterDigital)
* Jungha Hong (ETRI)
* Yong-Geun Hong (ETRI)
* Akbar Rahman (Interdigital)
* Solomon Kembo (University of Zimbabwe) – ISOC Tech Fellow
* Laurent Ciavaglia (Nokia)

##Context
At IETF-98, one of the T2TRG break-out sessions was on Edge computing
By IETF-99, that break-out session was written up and reported out by 
Dirk and Eve
In the interim, Xavier DeFoy (InterDigital) led a x-company 
(InterDigital, Huwei, Intel) effort to produce a survey and gap analysis 
on Edge/Fog Computing for IoT,
which he presented at the IETF-100 T2TRG meeting
https://github.com/t2trg/2017-ietf100/blob/master/slides/13_IoT%20Edge%20Computing-t2trg-ietf100.pdf

##IoT Edge Computing – presentation by Yong-Geun Hong (ETRI)
Slides: 
https://github.com/t2trg/2017-ietf100/blob/master/slides/21_IoT-Edge-computing-ETRI.PDF
Fog has an important role to play in ambient computing, with Big Data
ETRI work focused on Traffic volume, real-time, reliable comms
Considerations for IoT – multiple mobile producers, adoption of ICN
Transform raw data into information, transform into knowledge through 
analysis
###Use case 1 – ICN-Fog scenario
Combine ICN + fog edge computing – to combat the cloud being “too 
far away” problem
Employ ICN caching to bring the data closer – operate on-demand
Q: what are the explicit ICN features exploited? Caching in the network 
– in the wired part of the network
Last hop however is wireless, so implemented an ICN-Fog WiFi router 
(CCNx code base)
Performed comparison between Cloud, CCNx, ICN-Fog modalities

###Use case 2 – Traffic classifier
Mix Labelled packets collected with deep learning
Wireless AP based Linux classifier

###Use case 3 – Smart construction
Monitoring data, e.g., noise, vibration, 9 kinds of gas, 4 kinds of 
videos (FHD, 360 degree, Drone, FLIR)
All being transported to Cloud
Redesigning because too much data
Transfer to cloud with selective video (quality, type, etc)
Predict risk situation ahead in Edge/Fog

###Discussion
Same question raised as in T2TRG: What issues align well with IETF 
mission?
Analyze the problem space to identify the activities in Edge/Fog that 
require protocol design or directories
Xavier LeFay et al performed a survey and analysis gap, as did Michael 
McBride presentation in T2TRG – IIoT – cataloging Huawei and China 
Mobile survey
Joerg: is this effort predicated on ICN? If so, then a non-starter.
No it is not predicated on ICN
But data-centric network design ideas seem well suited to a data-centric 
IoT, which is leading the IoT toward Edge/Fog architectural solution
There are existing IoT-centric protocols being designed like OPC-UA 
(Microsoft object linking)
however it is connection oriented, doesn’t scale so well, security 
model is connection based

Q: Is it fair to assume that MEC (ETSI Mobile Edge Computing) efforts 
are focused on wireless? No
MEC Phase I was more Telco and wireless/mobile oriented
MEC phase II is focusing more on Multi access edge computing (MEAC) – 
heterogeneous wireless – multi operator and multi domain
First access point is key
Northbound APIs are being standardized for 3rd party meta-data sharing, 
e.g., network capabilities
Application state location under scrutiny

Eve: One shift is that data stewardship becomes data transmission plus 
data analytics.
Now routers must perform routing, caching and processing
ETRI: More power/performance needed for those first hop gateways

Irrespective of the net capacity, still need to get the data through the 
access link
Although those access rates are growing, aggregation nodes at the edge 
(probably operate at 40-100Gbps)
Q: Impact on latency?
Q: How constrained the devices/things in the IoT?
Perhaps think about the range of Things capabilities – see where 
“the clusters are”
Running containers on Raspberry pi
Unikernels are even more light weight than containers
In the ICN-world, moving the compute to the edge or fog is embodied in 
Named Functions
See the work of Christian Tschudin (U. Basel) – even more lightweight 
an operation

Ari: don’t worry about the scope of this activity as yet
Akbar: Let’s look at some example architectures
Link layered service break-out is somehow related, too, potentially
Some possible places to focus:
Directory services – finding things
Federation protocols – forming local clouds or trusted affiliations
Local control loops – actuation, reaction

What is the Relationship with Cloud computing?
Nail down the definition of Edge and Fog

What are some of the topics to tackle, given the survey?
On the constrained device side…
Ari: How to express the data, how do the devices make it easier on the 
edge aggregation/collection nodes?
Data models is a key part (how to express the data), what kind of comms 
paradigms (is REST the best paradigm), what kind of security (some 
components need to do operations on it, aggregate on it, etc)
Eve: One thought would be to consider the data lifecycle and tell the 
data stewardship story at each phase of the lifecycle, to identify the 
needs/requirements

###Heterogeneity and diversity
Objects and meta-data stewardship, with data as one example of an object
Work in this space could benefit from specific grassroot proposals (vs 
marketectures)
Useful requirement for IETF/IRTF approach – “Openness” – as 
described in Xavier’s talk/survey
Are there architectural invariants – principles – requirements – 
tenets – operational assumptions?
This may align with the WISHI activites – there are weekly to 
bi-monthly calls
https://github.com/t2trg/2017-07-wishi

This discussion also relates to the SEC events
2017 was the 2nd ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC)
CFP for SEC’18 not out yet (likely not due until around April 2018), 
but event will be held in October 2018, in Seattle, Washington, USA
http://acm-ieee-sec.org/2018/index.html

It may be useful to consider the classification of use cases and 
architectures – since IoT is typically organized into vertical 
industries
Each of which has use-case driven requirements
What is the environment E2E needing support?
Constrained and non-constrained devices and cloud and edge and fog
What are the gaps for connectivity solutions?
Consider a range of different scenarios
Consider the network management & operations of such decentralized 
solutions – as well as the deployment of solutions, not necessarily by 
a services operator
Self-organization and autonomy are key, if not immediate concerns, then 
certainly eventually the more dispersed the cloud gets
And the more the cloud becomes a cloud of clouds