I fully support Richard's idea. Young
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:00 PM To: Vijay K. Gurbani Cc: Leeyoung; alto Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO agenda for London IETF As much as I would like to see the graph representation (using the new terms that Greg, Wendy, and I are recently using, Path Vector and/or Graph representation), starting with a survey is a quite reasonable idea. But I hope that it is not limited to only an informational survey, and a couple slides showing what the format might look like can be helpful. Richard On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 02/17/2014 02:39 PM, Leeyoung wrote: Hi Vijay, I read your agenda page you just published. I read the following as one of the agenda: (Informational) A survey of techniques to formalize the structure of a network graph (that can derived from a set of related ALTO network and cost maps) in a format that would facilitate advanced graph computation. Such survey will cover both models used in popular open-source software (e.g. NetworkX, Blueprints) and models being considered in other working groups (e.g. netmod, i2rs). (18') Have the WG already decided this item to be just informational not on standard track? I thought the mailing discussions in the last few weeks show that there are Sufficient interests and willingness to work on this item. Young: The interest and willingness to work is precisely why it is on the list of work items! Whether this turns out to be Informational, Standards track or Experimental is yet to be determined; the track on the agenda is merely where discussions start. Clearly, the discussion we had on the list lead to an understanding that this is a sufficiently complex topic that any pithy attempt to characterize it merely for the sake of "doing something" will not be valued as much as a reasoned attempt to catalogue what is missing from the current models to represent graphs. Once we have such a distinction, it becomes relatively easy to figure out how to close the gap. Should we blithely put a deliverable of "Graph representation and dynamic graph transformation techniques", I suspect that there will be some push back from the IESG on exactly what this means, considering that even among us there is some trepidation that we should do the easy part (graph representation) first before tackling the hard part (graph transformation). Remember, the charter is produced by the BoF/WG but has to be accepted by the IESG. As such, taking a nuanced approach by understanding the missing pieces first appears to make sense, no? We will discuss this some more during London, of course. Cheers, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com<http://bell-labs.com>,acm.org<http://acm.org>} / [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto -- -- ===================================== | Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> | | Professor of Computer Science | | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | =====================================
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
