[appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached
Krishna Sankar
ksankar at cisco.com
Thu Mar 17 11:48:11 CST 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Good thoughts and agree with your insights.
Interesting to see the three BOFs/Proposals. Yep, would like to see your
Sensor Net BOF notes, if it is not much trouble. Would like pointers to the
other proposals as well.
Yep, RFID does require immediate attention. As you know, RFID is in the
tagging domain while sensor nets are in the control and monitor domain. So
they would have different flavors at the substrate level.
If we have ubiquity/pervasiveness as the backdrop and have sub domains that
would work. But we need to make sure there is a cohesive and coherent
architecture (at the conceptual model level) and common protocols and
mechanisms (at the pragmatic level). For example the mechanics and
mechanisms to establish ad-hic networks should be congruent to the sensor
network protocols. Of course, we will leverage work done at ZigBee,
IPv6(lowPAN) et al, and so this might not be a big issue. Similarly on the
security side, we should aim for common artifacts for security materials
(like certs and keys). In this case I assume we should be able to flow the
security "stuff" from the grid security.
As you mention, we need to aggregate the proposals. Would be happy to help
in any way, especially from the Wireless Sensor Networks perspective. Would
a meeting of the committed (and the hopeful!) be helpful ?
Cheers
- -k.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Omer F. Rana [mailto:O.F.Rana at cs.cardiff.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:09 AM
> To: Krishna Sankar
> Cc: 'Cees de Laat'; 'dimitris lioupis'; 'Ian Taylor';
> appagg-rg at ggf.org
> Subject: RE: [appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached
>
> Hi Krishna,
>
> Interesting discussion here. The issue is that there have
> been three proposals (and BoFs) to establish something for
> Ubiqitous computing area.
>
> They have come from folks proposing (1) Sensor Networks, (2)
> Ad Hoc Networking, and (3) UbiComp -- in addition to this
> Appliance Aggregation group. So, one possibility is to have a
> research group in UbiComp, say, and then have a number of
> working groups that explore some very specific areas.
>
> The key discussion at the Sensor Nets BoF was focused on how
> these could be used as a component within an existing Grid
> infrastructure. A particular focus was on discussions
> relating to RFID -- and essentially mechanisms whereby
> RFID-type sensor reading instruments could be used to provide
> data capture.
> However, there was discussion of a range of other ideas.
> Another topic of discussion was how one can produce a lighter
> version of WSRF/OGSA for such sensors. I can send you my
> notes from the meeting if this helps.
>
> I guess there is definately strong interest in Ubiquitous
> computing in the Grid forum right now. Interesting thing
> would be to see how these various interests could be
> effectively aggregated.
>
> all the best
> Omer
>
>
> Quoting Krishna Sankar <ksankar at cisco.com>:
>
> > I do think there is an intersection (as opposed to synergy /
> > convergence) with grid and intelligent environment which includes
> > appliance aggregation, sensor networks and so forth. Sensor
> networks
> > as a grid substrate itself is a good idea. Would like to see what
> > discussions went on at the sensor network BOF.
> >
> > But sensor networks (with all it's charm and complexity) is
> only part
> > of the equation. The ability to aggregate sensor inputs
> (remember this
> > is an asymmetrical flow of information i.e. from the edges
> to the core
> > of a network, so aggregation, filtering et al is slightly
> different)
> > and to make intelligent inferences, still depends on the "devices".
> >
> > To make the story short, yep, we should explore a new RG/or a
> > kindlier-gentler-improved RG which includes the sensor
> network domain.
> >
> > Just my 0.02$ (which is not that much worth now-a-days compared to
> > 0.02 euros :o))
> >
> > Cheers
> > -k.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > -
> > | | Krishna Sankar, Distinguished Engineer
> > :|: :|:
> > :|||: :|||: - Disruptive Technologies &
> Architectures
> > ..:|||||||:.....:|||||||:.. - Security, Mobility & Integration
> > Cisco Systems Inc - Mobile-Asymmetric-Composable-Embedded
> > Networks
> > (Ph) 408-853-8475 ksankar at cisco.com
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > -
> > "Things are only impossible only until they're not ..."
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > -
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-appagg-rg at ggf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-appagg-rg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Cees de Laat
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:21 AM
> > > To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor'
> > > Cc: appagg-rg at ggf.org
> > > Subject: [appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached
> > >
> > > Please note that the mail from David DeRoure was
> addressed to me and
> > > we (the AD's) will ultimately select if we want to see a
> recharter
> > > or closing and going through a bof procedure.
> > > Currently I must say we prefer the clean BOF way for a
> new charter
> > > combining interests from ubiquitous computing and appagg
> but nothing
> > > is carved in stone yet.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Cees.
> > >
> > > At 11:07 AM +0200 3/16/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:
> > > >Dear Ian,
> > > >
> > > >Yes there was some interest (20 attended) and there was
> > > discussion in
> > > >the end. I have presented some results we obtained at Patras
> > > Univ. and
> > > >it all went well.
> > > >
> > > >There are two options as suggested by David De Roure
> (see also his
> > > >attached
> > > >email):
> > > >1. complete the documents described in the charter and
> > > conclude the rg
> > > >and get a pad on the back, or 2. Restructure the charter and
> > > increase
> > > >the scope of the rg to include ubiquitous computing, artificial
> > > >intelligence, sensor networks and such to get more people
> > > involved and
> > > >increase the engagement and consensus in APPAGG. We could
> > > even call it
> > > >UBICOM-RG if that is the general consensus.
> > > >
> > > >I favour the second approach as it will set us up faster to keep
> > > >working on our research and avoid the BOF stages. In the
> meantime
> > > >we should try to generate interest in this work. I am attending
> > > a workshop
> > > >on Ubiquitous Computing in Edinburgh next may and I am also
> > > trying to
> > > >get in touch with CoreGRID who have similar interests. If we
> > > generate
> > > >enough interest we can do either of the 2 scenarios
> described above.
> > > >
> > > >What do you think?? Can you help??
> > > >Regards
> > > > -Dimitris-
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Ian Taylor [mailto:Ian.J.Taylor at cs.cardiff.ac.uk]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM
> > > >To: Omer F. Rana
> > > >Cc: dlioupis at cti.gr
> > > >Subject: Re: Minutes attached
> > > >
> > > >Excellent - what was the outcome? - was there much interest?
> > > >
> > > >Ian
> > > >
> > > >On 14 Mar 2005, at 08:41, Omer F. Rana wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Good presentation today for the Appliances group. Minutes are
> > > >> attached.
> > > >>
> > > >> regards
> > > >> Omer
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/index.html /
> > > >> work-fax:+44(0)29-2087-4598
> > > >> work:+44(0)29-2087-5542 / other:+44(0)7956-299981 /
> distributed
> > > >> collaborative computing / room n2.14 / school of computer
> > > science /
> > > >> cardiff university
> > > >> queen's buildings / newport road / cardiff cf24 3aa
> / wales /
> > > >> uk
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet
> Messaging Program.
> > > >> <appliance-aggregation.txt>
> > > >Lecturer, School of Computer Science, Cardiff.
> > > >Assistant Professor, Dept. Computer Science and CCT, LSU.
> > > >www.cs.cf.ac.uk/user/I.J.Taylor/ & www.p2pgridbook.com
> > > >Tel: +44-781110 3142
> > > >
> > > >From: "David De Roure" <dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > > >To: "Cees de Laat" <delaat at science.uva.nl>
> > > >Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" <dlioupis at cti.gr>,
> > > > "Oliver Storz" <oliver at comp.lancs.ac.uk>,
> > > > "Omer F. Rana" <o.f.rana at cs.cardiff.ac.uk>
> > > >Subject: appliance aggregation
> > > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200
> > > >Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10503141346400.27784-100000 at pandora>
> > > >MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > > charset="us-ascii"
> > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
> > > >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0
> > > >X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk via kronos.cti.gr
> > > >X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.24 (Clear:RC:0(152.78.70.1):SA:0(0.0/6.0):.
> > > >Processed in 0.605132 secs)
> > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 13:52:39.0960 (UTC)
> > > >FILETIME=[16556980:01C5289D]
> > > >Thread-Index: AcUonRXCkK8ulhtaRJCW/u7Et85+Bw==
> > > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> > > >In-Reply-To: <p06210208be5af7501bb7@[150.183.85.163]>
> > > >x-sender: dder at pandora
> > > >x-mailscanner-from: dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > > >x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean
> > > >x-mailscanner-information: Please contact
> > > helpdesk at ecs.soton.ac.uk for
> > > >more information
> > > >
> > > >Cees - a brief report of afternoon discussions around
> the Appliance
> > > >Aggregation session (minutes of the session will be provided
> > > separately).
> > > >
> > > >The context of the session is that this RG had a 36 month
> > > charter and
> > > >is now at the end of this time, so Dimitris is planning to bring
> > > >the activity to a close. The group has produced the first of 3
> > > documents
> > > >and is preparing to produce the next (architecture) prior to
> > > the final
> > > >one (standards). Dimitris appears to be pretty much on his
> > > own as the
> > > >others who had been involved in a leadership capacity
> and in active
> > > >work appear to have withdrawn from this GGF activity.
> > > >
> > > >The session had reasonable attendance and attracted a little
> > > discussion.
> > > >Dimitris invited volunteers to help with the next document
> > > but on the
> > > >whole people continued to read their email rather than raising
> > > >their hands.
> > > >
> > > >Afterwards we had a "gang of four" meeting with Oliver and Omer
> > > >Rana (Omer had acted as secretary for the session - he
> used to run
> > > >a JINI activity in GGF and has an interest in ubiquitous
> computing
> > > and sensor
> > > >networks).
> > > >
> > > >We discussed the nature of a future ubiquitous activity
> in GGF. We
> > > >felt that it may be appropriate to bring Appliance
> Aggregation to a
> > > >close and then create a new activity informed by the
> results of the
> > > >Appliance Aggregation work. The new RG could bring together the
> > > >interests and enthusiasm of Oliver and Dimitris as leaders,
> > > and Omer is
> > > >very supportive.
> > > >
> > > >Subject to discussion with you, we also considered that the
> > > best way to
> > > >wrap up the current RG might be to combine the remaining 2
> > > reports into
> > > >one and then to use this output as a basis for the new
> > > activity - this
> > > >will make it as useful as possible and perhaps also easier
> > > to deliver.
> > > >
> > > >Another strategy would be to review the Appliance
> > > Aggregation charter
> > > >to extend it into the new activity. I prefer the neatness
> > > of finishing
> > > >one and starting a new one. This will of course introduce a
> > > hurdle -
> > > >i.e. it remains to be tested whether or not there is sufficient
> > > >interest to create a new RG.
> > > >
> > > >I am waiting to see what the Sensor RG BoF is about
> tomorrow before
> > > >considering whether a new RG would have a broad umbrella
> > > which includes
> > > >sensor networks or whether there should be a distinct sensor
> > > activity.
> > > >
> > > >We also discussed various research projects which are
> > > playing in this
> > > >space, and how we can bring their work to GGF. I took
> an action to
> > > >follow up with CoreGrid as this has a peer-to-peer
> aspect. Another
> > > >case in pointis the Akogrimo project, which includes
> > > mobility and grid.
> > > >The european funding programme does encourage standards
> > > engagement, so
> > > >this could be mutually beneficial.
> > > >
> > > >Finally, it seems to me that from a community engagement
> > > >perspective there is value in establishing these links
> with parts
> > > >of the
> > > ubiquitous
> > > >community, as it is a growing community with increasing
> > > interest in the
> > > >grid - so I am keen to keep these discussions going.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >
> > > >-- Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/index.html /
> work-fax:+44(0)29-2087-4598
> work:+44(0)29-2087-5542 / other:+44(0)7956-299981 /
> distributed collaborative computing / room n2.14 / school of
> computer science / cardiff university
> queen's buildings / newport road / cardiff cf24 3aa / wales / uk
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQjnC0ZDXgFu0YxTIEQLhrQCcCUeJXfcoGsS01NJPJTPjb1sNL5sAnRjq
0IiBM11Dwgm56FfB7l2b+Xww
=Ld2E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the appagg-rg
mailing list