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@cisco.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - "Things are only impossible only until they're not ..." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

-----Original Message----- From: owner-appagg-rg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-appagg-rg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Cees de Laat Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:21 AM To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor' Cc: appagg-rg@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.

...

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

...

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@cs.cardiff.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM To: Omer F. Rana Cc: dlioupis@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. 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" To: "Cees de Laat" Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" , "Oliver Storz" , "Omer F. Rana" Subject: appliance aggregation Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200 Message-ID: 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@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: x-sender: dder@pandora x-mailscanner-from: dder@ecs.soton.ac.uk x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean x-mailscanner-information: Please contact helpdesk@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

...

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

At 11:07 AM +0200 3/16/05, dimitris lioupis wrote: trying to the final 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/

-----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@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@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 :

...

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@cisco.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

...

------ - "Things are only impossible only until they're not ..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

...

------ -

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-appagg-rg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-appagg-rg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Cees de Laat Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:21 AM To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor' Cc: appagg-rg@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.

...

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

At 11:07 AM +0200 3/16/05, dimitris lioupis wrote: 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@cs.cardiff.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM To: Omer F. Rana Cc: dlioupis@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. 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" To: "Cees de Laat" Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" , "Oliver Storz" , "Omer F. Rana" Subject: appliance aggregation Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200 Message-ID: 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@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: x-sender: dder@pandora x-mailscanner-from: dder@ecs.soton.ac.uk x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean x-mailscanner-information: Please contact helpdesk@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-----

At 7:19 PM +0200 3/20/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:

Dear Cees,

There is no doubt in my mind that the AD's will eventually decide which way to go as far as the APPAGG rg is concerned. I was only expressing my opinion for everyone involved to know. I will keep pursuing the involvement of more interested parties in this work as described before, and start preparing the architecture document for circulation.

sounds good, Best regards, Cees.

Regards, -Dimitris-

-----Original Message----- From: Cees de Laat [mailto:delaat@science.uva.nl] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:21 AM To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor' Cc: appagg-rg@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@cs.cardiff.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM To: Omer F. Rana Cc: dlioupis@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. 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" To: "Cees de Laat" Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" , "Oliver Storz" , "Omer F. Rana" Subject: appliance aggregation Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200 Message-ID: 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@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: x-sender: dder@pandora x-mailscanner-from: dder@ecs.soton.ac.uk x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean x-mailscanner-information: Please contact helpdesk@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.science.uva.nl/~delaat/