Subject: [IMRG] imrg futures

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:32:20 -0500

Hi folks!

IMRG has been pretty quiet lately, with not much percolating off-list
either.  So, I have started to wonder whether this RG is needed or
whether we should consider it done.  From my viewpoint this RG was
created as an umbrella under which various activities across network
measurement could be pursued.  And, to an extent that has happened (with
workshops and review teams and such).  However, I think we need to
either come up with a use for this RG or just wrap it up.  So, if you
have something that you think would benefit from operating under the
auspices of the IMRG, please let me know (or, the list).  

And, remember that this is an open RG, but the charter explicitly calls
out the fact that certain activities can be closed.  As long as there is
some reporting to the community I would be very happy to have some
closed sorts of group working on things because I think it can be
conducive to rapid progress.  (That doesn't mean I think open activities
shouldn't be undertaken.)

Please let me know what you think ...

(Oh, I am on my way to IETF right now, so if you want to chat in person
this week and will be around, shoot me an email and we'll work something
out.)

Thanks!

allman
(IMRG chair)

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

_______________________________________________
IMRG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imrg

---

From: "Jennifer Rexford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:38:00 -0500

Mark,

Hi, thanks for getting the ball rolling.  Here are a few thoughts to give
the ball an additional kick.  I'm not sure which of these (if any) make
sense specifically in a context like IMRG, but these are some
measurement-related things I've been thinking or wondering about...

- Education/curriculum: What do we think a measurement-oriented researcher
needs to know -- about things like (i) conducting experiments, analyzing
data, etc. and (ii) key results from past work in the area of Internet
measurement?  That is, what would we consider the underlying skills and
knowledge that researchers in this space should have?  Most folks didn't
start out as measurement people, and many of us are computer scientists by
training and don't (by default) get much training in conducting experimental
work and dealing with data.  What do we all wish we had learned before
embarking on this kind of work?

- Network support for measurement: What basic functionality for measurement
would we like to see in network elements and protocols?  Here the emphasis
could be on support that is minimal in its overhead and opertionally
feasible (e.g., people would turn it on because it doesn't reveal too much
sensitive information and/or it is useful for operational purposes such as
traffic engineering, troubleshooting network problems, etc.).  For example,
suppose we wanted to monitor BGP update messages and infer the location and
cause of routing changes.  What extra information in the messages would help
us do this?  Is the extra overhead small enough to warrant that change?

- Measurement in support of network operations: Lots of folks use
measurement data in running their networks (e.g., traffic matrices to do
traffic engineering, packet/flow data to detect anomalies and attacks,
routing measurements to track the topology and detect anomalies, etc.).
Would it make sense to give these monitoring/management systems real-time,
direct control over the packet-handling behavior of the network elements --
elevating measurement to a first-class citizen in driving the functioning of
the network?  What would it take to make this happen?

-- Jen 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mark
Allman
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 9:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [IMRG] imrg futures

Hi folks!

Thanks!

allman
(IMRG chair)

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:57:12 +0100

At 03:32 07/03/2005, Mark Allman wrote:

><file://e:\henk uijterwaal\eudora\attach\Untitled41.ems <0880.0002>>
>[]
><file://e:\henk uijterwaal\eudora\attach\Untitled41.ems <0880.0002>> 
>Untitled41.ems

The problem that I see is not that we cannot come up with a set of topics
that we want to discuss and pursue, but that the IMRG does not have a
framework that forces us to actually do some research, then write it
up and discuss it in a serious but not too formal setting.   On the other
hand, there is a whole series of formal and informal workshops and
conferences (PAM200x, IMC, IEEE-E2EMON, RIPE TT-WG, NANOG's research
session, ..., etc, etc) with CFP's and meetings.  Most of us have
other obligations as well.  The net result of all this, is (or at least
seems to be) that we all end up with great plans what to do in the
IMRG framework, then find out that we have so many other deadlines to
meet that all these plans end up somewhere on the bottom of the stack.

The exception to this was the BEST workshop organized 2 years ago,
where a number of people on a topic met and discussed bandwidth estimation
for 2 days and actually made progress.

We obviously should not try to organize yet another workshop on
measurements.  However, I do think that if we want to make progress in
this RG, we should not only come up with a list of topic, but also with
some plan that "forces" people to actually follow up on suggestions
and present/discuss results,

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad.                 (Tom Verlaine)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:14:29 -0500

Hi Henk:
What sort of thing did you have in mind that would "force" research?  
One of the reasons that I suggested that the group tie itself to  
measurement problems that CAIDA, RIPE and others have (both short and  
long term) was to provide some motivation for us all to solve real  
problems and contribute generally to the science of measurement...I  
also liked Jennifer Rexford's suggestion of measurement in support of  
network operations...

I guess my thought is to find something that needs doing and is of  
general use and expend effort on that...

Regards,
Phil Chimento

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:42:25 +0100

>general use and expend effort on that...

I don't think that finding topics that need to be done and have some
general use is the problem.  But once we have found the topic, then
we should also look at:

  * What do we exactly want to do (and what not).
  * Set some realistic goals and milestones for the near future (say
    months to a year).
  * Get commitment from people to spend time on this in this period.
  * Agree how to make progress.

Looking at myself, I don't think that the problem is to list things that
I'd be interested to look at if I had more time, the problem is to
find to time to look at them.

Henk

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:48:20 -0500

Well, you're right; the commitment has to be there in order to sustain  
the work. The choice of topic, though, has some effect on the  
commitment; something that is of value to, say, RIPE, is probably going  
to have a higher priority in your work queue; I know that would be true  
of me and a measurement topic that was of importance to my  
organization.

I like the list of steps in your e-mail and think that it is exactly  
right....
I hope others weigh in with their opinions.

Regards,
Phil Chimento

On Mar 15, 2005, at 03:42, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -- -------
>>> Henk Uijterwaal                           Email:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -- -------
>>>

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:54:20 -0500

Thanks for the thoughts everyone!  I am watching them and I eagerly look
forward to additional comments folks might have.

> general use is the problem.

Let me echo Henk's comments here --- and, maybe add a couple of my own
bits.  

One of the things I have found as IMRG chair is that folks have tons of
ideas for what sorts of areas the RG could fruitfully explore.  Nearly
all the topics people have mentioned to me are good and useful.  Some
are more suited for the RG than others.  We need good ideas for sure.
However, we also need some energy to make those good ideas go.

In some sense, we really need two things to make forward progress here:

(1) We need topics that would benefit from community wide *work*.  Some
    topics just do not warrant the energy of a broad community, but
    rather can be accomplished by a small group of interested folks.
    Other topics very much benefit from broader input.  For instance,
    Jen's measurement curriculum ideas seem to fall in the latter
    category.  (Note: There are very important problems to be worked in
    both classes.  The distinction is relative to what IMRG thinks on,
    not what is thought on in a more general context.)

(2) We need energy for the topics in question.  As Henk noted, BEST
    worked.  However, it worked because there was a core group of folks
    who anted up cycles and energy to make it work.  Simply identifying
    topics is not enough.  This naturally begs the question of what the
    RG can do to help in this area.  And, that is what I am struggling
    with.  If there is some sort of structural construct we can work out
    that would foster activity then let's do it.  E.g., if there would
    be energy to commit within a closed sub-group in some given area
    then let's see if we can make that fly.  Or, if there are a few folk
    who want to organize a workshop / meeting to help make forward
    progress on something then let's work on that.

Finally, let me note that Henk is right in mentioning that there are
many venues and etc. in the measurement community.  What is not clear to
me is whether IMRG can fill a need in the community or not.

Thanks!

allman