Subject: [cso] Mailing List Sunset

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:21:12 -0500

Folks,

It appears that this work has not gained traction within the IETF. Therefore, this list will be shut down on Friday, December 16. Please feel free to use the list until then to summarize your work and announce future plans.

--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:06:36 -0500

Where will people take the work that has been discussed here? This is not
directed at you, Ron, but at the contributors.
On Nov 25, 2011 12:26 PM, "Ronald Bonica" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> It appears that this work has not gained traction within the IETF.
> Therefore, this list will be shut down on Friday, December 16. Please feel
> free to use the list until then to summarize your work and announce future
> plans.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cso mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cso
>

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:35:26 +0000

Hi,

We are working on moving the CSO mailing list to alternative site at this moment. We will shortly announce the new site and the future plans.
Thanks.

Young

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott Brim
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [cso] Mailing List Sunset

Where will people take the work that has been discussed here? This is not directed at you, Ron, but at the contributors.
On Nov 25, 2011 12:26 PM, "Ronald Bonica" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Folks,

--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf<http://www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf>

_______________________________________________
cso mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cso

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:31:46 +0100

Hi Leeyoung,

Many thx !

Hi Ron,

Great success of pushing very useful work out of IETF/IRTF doors.

Only because perhaps there was no charter .. not even section of IRTF 
web page one should not shut down this group.

However the charter could be as simple as copy and paste a section from 
one of the excellent drafts this wg produced: 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lee-cross-stratum-optimization-datacenter-00.txt

    The IETF ALTO WG has focused on overlay optimization among peers by
    utilizing information about topological proximity and appropriate
    geographical locations of the underlay networks. With this method,
    the optimization generally occurs in selecting peer location which
    will help reduce IP traffic unnecessarily traversing IP service
    providers. Current scope of this work does not address general
    problems this document has been discussing such as the selection of
    application servers based on resource availability and usage of the
    underlying networks.

Also IMHO I think the name of this group was poorly chosen. For vast 
majority of non native English speakers the name of the group was highly 
cryptic .. first guess was that this is all about stratum 0 to stratum 3 
clocking optimization .... booooooring.

While the reality turns out to be something really different. That this 
is about cross network layer application proximity services what is one 
of the hottest topics/optimization in networking today.

The actual work in this group is very needed and should be continued 
within the IETF/IRTF.

I suggest to rename the group/gathering/bof to something much more 
meaningful, enter it's charter on IRTF page as "tent wg" and allow folks 
interested to share drafts, research and continue discuss on the mailing 
list. Even if the group would not get the room in Paris as Lars said 
during last meeting that is still ok.

Best regards,
R.

> On Nov 25, 2011 12:26 PM, "Ronald Bonica"<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>  wrote:
> Folks,
>

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:07:22 -0500

Robert,

I cannot push this work out of the IETF because it is not in the IETF. There is no WG, no planned BoF, not even a proposed BoF. If you are interested in bringing this work into the IETF, propose a BoF.

Alternatively, if you are interested in forming an IRTF RG, please coordinate with Lars and the IRSG.

                                               Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:32 PM
> To: Leeyoung; Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Scott Brim; [email-masked]
> > We are working on moving the CSO mailing list to alternative site at
> this moment. We will shortly announce the new site and the future
> plans.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Young
> >
> > Where will people take the work that has been discussed here? This is
> not directed at you, Ron, but at the contributors.
> > On Nov 25, 2011 12:26 PM, "Ronald
> Bonica"<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>  wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> Therefore, this list will be shut down on Friday, December 16. Please
> feel free to use the list until then to summarize your work and
> announce future plans.
> >
> > vcard:
> www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf<http://www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vc
> f>
> >

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:25:01 +0200

Hi,

> Alternatively, if you are interested in forming an IRTF RG, please coordinate with Lars and the IRSG.

this has been tried, and several side meetings were held during previous IETF meetings. It doesn't appear as if the effort is coming together and gaining focus, however. Hence my decision during the Taipei meeting to not charter a CSO RG.

Lars
IRTF Chair

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:07:28 +0000

Lars,

I disagree with what you said. We had come up with the charter based on people's feedback and there were two initial academic papers presented in Taipei showing the proof of cso concept. Although both papers have rooms for improvement, it was off to a good start showing the potential of app/net joint optimization. 

Besides, there are a critical mass of research folks who expressed their interest in this area of research. I fully agree with the perspectives of Richard Yang and Robert Raszuk on the importance of app/net joint optimization. 

Many of the current IRTF RG's have a rather broad research scope and I am not sure if our current charter is any broader than those. 

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:25 AM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: [email-masked]; Leeyoung; Scott Brim; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [cso] Mailing List Sunset

Hi,

Lars
IRTF Chair

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:15:50 -0800

Hi Lars, I missed the Taipei meeting so wasn't sure of the reasoning 
behind the decision not to charter a CSO research group. I did notice at 
previous side meetings it was difficult to get in a word edge wise over 
the cacophony of voices at the side meetings. However, I have been 
involved in writing several of the CSO related documents, e.g., 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernstein-alto-large-bandwidth-cases-00, so 
maybe we can discuss the chartering of CSO on this list.

The general CSO research topic is to figure out ways that the two 
strata, application and network, can work better together. A specific 
sub-problem of this is being addressed by the IETF ALTO working group. 
When we presented the above draft to the ALTO WG in Quebec there seemed 
a fairly clear understanding of the research problems we were interested 
in and how they went beyond ALTO charter and scope.

I see a number of research drivers for this work: (a) Cross Stratum 
Resource Optimization -- problem statement and algorithms, (b) Trends in 
data center traffic (inter, intra, dynamics, etc...), (c) Joint 
resilience/recovery.  Work in these areas would influence the 
development of "interfaces" between the strata which is the overarching 
goal of the effort.

Why the IRTF/IETF? In the areas of GMPLS and PCE we have well 
established tools for network optimization and resilience. Note that the 
first GMPLS deployments in the early 2000s we driven by optimization 
(via soft permanent connections) and new mesh recovery options. Other 
groups such the Open Grid Forum took a more application layer focus or 
did not take into account the network tools in place (GMPLS, PCE) or the 
arms length relationship between many data centers and carriers.

I have recently put together a longer breakdown of CSO related research 
topics and how they fit together and could post it, if it would be 
helpful in chartering a CSO IRTF group. I frequently serve as a reviewer 
for IEEE, ACM, and OSA publications, have served on NSF proposal review 
boards, and have consulted to DARPA in the establishment of research 
programs. This seems to me to be a fairly rich research area and one 
that can mutually benefit the IRTF by association.

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:00:34 -0800

Hi folks, I've looked into some options for continued interaction if 
this list and accompanying Wiki are shut down.
These include:
(a) A Yahoo! Group. --> Pros: list distribution and archiving, web page 
and file posting; Cons: advertising, limited customization
(b) A Google Group --> Pros: list distribution and archiving;  Cons: no 
web page or file posting
(c) A WordPress site based at cccso.net (where we hosted the Korea 
workshop info) --> Pros: web page, wiki/blog, file posting, 
customization; Cons: no list processing
(d) A MediaWiki site based at cccso.net --> Pros: web page, wiki/blog, 
file posting, customization; Cons: no list processing.
(e) Other? I use Drupal for my own site but not sure we need this much 
customization.

Right now the only customization I think would be helpful for wiki or 
blog is good web mathematics support. I particularly like MathJax 
<http://www.mathjax.org/>as it understands LaTex and MathMML, permits 
easy copy and paste, and has wide browser support and is endorsed by a 
ton of technical societies. In addition (or most importantly) I got it 
to work with some sample WordPress and MediaWiki deployments 
(http://cccso.net/mw/index.php/Greg%27s_Page and http://cccso.net/wp/ ).

Two key area for a CSO wiki/blog would be on problem formulations and 
references (both categorized). For example Richard Yang's recent post 
gives a lot of good references and a bunch of those are available free 
from Tim Roughgarden's web page (http://theory.stanford.edu/~tim/ 
<http://theory.stanford.edu/%7Etim/>).  With the UT Dallas and BUPT 
presentations we saw two different problem formulations which would be 
nice to share on a Wiki.

It looks like we have a very good and diverse set of folks interested in 
this area, let me know preferences for the above Wiki/blog/list 
choices.  I'm kind of leaning towards "Google groups" for the list and a 
separate advertising free wiki/blog type site.

Cheers

Greg B.

On 11/25/2011 1:06 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>     Therefore, this list will be shut down on Friday, December 16.
>     Please feel free to use the list until then to summarize your work
>     and announce future plans.
>
>     <http://www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:35:31 +0000

Hi Greg,

Google group looks great! I also like Media Wiki for Web Site for CSO.

Thanks a lot.

Young

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [cso] New list and wiki/blog? Re: Mailing List Sunset

Hi folks, I've looked into some options for continued interaction if this list and accompanying Wiki are shut down.
These include:
(a) A Yahoo! Group. --> Pros: list distribution and archiving, web page and file posting; Cons: advertising, limited customization
(b) A Google Group --> Pros: list distribution and archiving;  Cons: no web page or file posting
(c) A WordPress site based at cccso.net (where we hosted the Korea workshop info) --> Pros: web page, wiki/blog, file posting, customization; Cons: no list processing
(d) A MediaWiki site based at cccso.net --> Pros: web page, wiki/blog, file posting, customization; Cons: no list processing.
(e) Other? I use Drupal for my own site but not sure we need this much customization.

Right now the only customization I think would be helpful for wiki or blog is good web mathematics support. I particularly like MathJax <http://www.mathjax.org/> as it understands LaTex and MathMML, permits easy copy and paste, and has wide browser support and is endorsed by a ton of technical societies. In addition (or most importantly) I got it to work with some sample WordPress and MediaWiki deployments (http://cccso.net/mw/index.php/Greg%27s_Page and http://cccso.net/wp/ ).

Two key area for a CSO wiki/blog would be on problem formulations and references (both categorized). For example Richard Yang's recent post gives a lot of good references and a bunch of those are available free from Tim Roughgarden's web page (http://theory.stanford.edu/~tim/<http://theory.stanford.edu/%7Etim/>).  With the UT Dallas and BUPT presentations we saw two different problem formulations which would be nice to share on a Wiki.

It looks like we have a very good and diverse set of folks interested in this area, let me know preferences for the above Wiki/blog/list choices.  I'm kind of leaning towards "Google groups" for the list and a separate advertising free wiki/blog type site.

Cheers

Greg B.

cso mailing list

--

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:55:16 -0800

Hi folks, I've taken the CSO mailing list and used it to create 
invitations to the new CSO google group. If you don't get an invitation, 
I think you can directly sign up at 
http://groups.google.com/group/cross-stratum-optimization?hl=en, or send 
me an e-mail.

I just checked the group and see some folks are very fast and have 
already joined!

We're working on the migration of the CSO Wiki and one we get things 
tested and cleaned up we can set that up for more collaboration than the 
existing pre-IRTF CSO Wiki. Note that I've gotten initial very positive 
feedback on MathJax <http://www.mathjax.org/>functionality on those test 
pages I put up.

Cheers

Greg B.

On 11/30/2011 10:35 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Greg Bernstein
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:01 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [cso] New list and wiki/blog? Re: Mailing List Sunset
>
> (a) A Yahoo! Group. --> Pros: list distribution and archiving, web 
> page and file posting; Cons: advertising, limited customization
> It looks like we have a very good and diverse set of folks interested 
> in this area, let me know preferences for the above Wiki/blog/list 
> choices.  I'm kind of leaning towards "Google groups" for the list and 
> a separate advertising free wiki/blog type site.
>
> Cheers
>
> Greg B.
>
>