Subject: [irtf-discuss] Minutes from the Network Complexity Meeting, 29 July in Quebec

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 20:08:35 +0200

All, 

Thanks for all who participated at the meeting last Friday. We had about
30 attendees. The agenda, presentations and minutes, as well as the
current form of the draft IRTF RG charter can be found at: 

http://networkcomplexity.org/wiki/index.php?title=81st_IETF_Side_Meeting

Michael

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:23:52 +0100

Jon,

The minutes misquote me.

I said this research field is currently tiny compared to other 
cross-cutting fields such as Network Security or Network QoS.

I was pointing out that the IRTF is primarily there to bring together 
researchers in an area where it is not yet clear exactly what would 
be standardised, but it should be possible to determine this with 
some IRTF effort (e.g. LISP, ICCRG, GSEC, HIPRG).

One wouldn't expect the IRTF to conduct any fundamental research 
itself. So we need to be aware that an IRTF group would be building 
on the fairly young foundations of a new field that is only just 
getting recognised itself. Therefore, if this becomes an IRTF R-G, 
it's main role would be encouraging growth of this new field and 
keeping it at the forefront of the minds of the Internet Community.

...Just trying to make sure that people are conscious of the place in 
history we have reached.

Bob

At 11:32 02/08/2011, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>hmm - so I think the comment about there not being a
>complex network science is a bit out of date - a lot of groups have
>not only started forming around a web&network science idea, but taken
>on board all the physics and math and systems science complexity
>pieces....and there are summer schools and masters courses appearing
>that teach this stuff in a pretty coherent way too...
>
>In missive 
><[email-masked]>, "M
>ichael Behringer (mbehring)" typed:
>
>  >>All,=20
>  >>
>  >>current form of the draft IRTF RG charter can be found at:=20
>  >>
>  >>http://networkcomplexity.org/wiki/index.php?title=3D81st_IETF_Side_Meetin=
>  >>g
>  >>
>  >>Michael
>  >>
>
>  cheers
>
>    jon

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

---

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:47:36 +0200

John, 

I think the misunderstanding has been cleared up, but anyway, it would
be good if you could point us to relevant conferences, meetings, papers
etc, and add this information on the wiki! 

Thanks!
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 02 August 2011 12:33
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Minutes from the Network Complexity Meeting, 29 July in
> Quebec
> 
> In missive <51865E1A72F61D48A247348DCCBA5CFB04649BC3@XMB-AMS-
> 105.cisco.com>, "M

---

From: "Doyle, John C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:40:13 -0700

I think rather than a cusp there's a complete disconnect between those
two directions.  But I could be wrong.

It certainly is there in neuroscience, which is a new area I'm learning
about. Ironically, I'm at a meeting at KITP (theoretical physics) that's
actually quite good.  The disconnect is growing there, but hopefully it
won't make a mess like it has in systems biology (or anything on the
Internet in the science literature).

I gave two talks roughly on my recent PNAS paper and Science paper
(previous email and posted...) which are all online in various formats:

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/bblunch/doyle/

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/brain-m11/doyle2/

Both discuss layered architectures in other settings particularly
biology.  

Other talks in the workshop:

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/brain-m11/

> there's lots of others but these are probably the best examples of
> thigns on the _cusp_ between the irrelevant academic weirdness
> propagated by physics people for the cover of nature, and the
> practical problems faced by isps and mobile operators in understanding
> evolution, dynamics and properties of the artefacts that have grown up
> around us...
> 
> In missive
<[email-masked]>,
> "M
>  >>John,=20
>  >>etc, and add this information on the wiki!=20
>  >>
>  >>Thanks!
>  >>Michael
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>>=20
>  >>>=20
>  >>>=20
>  >>>  >>All,=3D20
>  >>>  >>Thanks for all who participated at the meeting last Friday. We
had
>  >>> about
>  >>>  >>current form of the draft IRTF RG charter can be found
at:=3D20
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>=20
>  >>>
>
>>>>http://networkcomplexity.org/wiki/index.php?title=3D3D81st_IETF_Side
_Me=
>  >>> etin=3D
>  >>>=20
>  >>>=20

---

From: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:29:53 +0530

One way to characterize complexity is to extend ideas from Chaitin's
Algorithmic Information Theory, which combines Shannon's information
theory and Turing's computability. 

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

The basic idea is that the complexity *necessary* is the size of the
"smallest" algorithm that will describe it. The complexity "current" is
the size of the current algorithms that are doing the same job. Taken
this way, at least in theory, you can get the ratio of Necessary
Complexity vs. Current Complexity.

Given the type of network, you have some Necessary Complexity and that
can be computed - 

Sum Of (Complexity of a given network node * radix of each node) - sum
over all network nodes.

Ashish

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Doyle, John C
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:10 PM
To: Jon Crowcroft; Michael Behringer (mbehring)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Minutes from the Network Complexity
Meeting,29 July in Quebec

had
at:=3D20
_Me=