plenary meeting paris, 28th – 30th april 2010

Plenary meeting, Paris 28th - 30th April 2010

Plenary Meeting

Paris, 28th – 30th April 2010


Participants

Martin May Technicolor

Stratis Ioannidis Technicolor

Andrea Passarella IIT-CNR, Italy

Eiko Yoneki CACML

Jon Crowcroft CAMCL

Christian Rohner Uppsala University

George Theodorakopoulos EPFL

Silvia Giordano SUPSI

Salvatore Vanini SUPSI

Melek Önen EURECOM

Martin Potts MARTEL


Agenda

28th April:

14:00: Administrative issues: Martel

• Current situation (end of December 09) regarding PMs

• Our responses to the feedback from the 3rd review

• Final PAR & PMR (Jan’09 (M37) – April’10 (M52)): status and deadlines

• Deliverable status

15:00 - 15:30: Feedback from experiments made since the January meeting

15:30 - 16:00: Coffee break


Agenda

16:00: WP presentations:

• Reference Architecture Uppsala

• Software/Integration statusUppsala/Thomson

• Security Eurecom

• Social Networking CAMCL

18:00: Close of Day 1

19:30: Dinner


Agenda

29th April:

09:00: Final Review (Friday 2nd July, Barcelona - FIREweek) Thomson• Agenda• Demos• .....

13:00 - 14:00: Lunch

14:00 - 17:00: Final Review preparation Thomson

17:30: Closing items:• Action Points• Date of next meeting (rehearsal for the final review)• AOB

18:00: Close of meeting


Agenda

30th April:

09:00 - 12:00: Discussions about Demo, SW, .... Thomson• Optional, only if necessary ....

12:00: Lunch (for those that are still around)


Agenda

28th April:









PM Status at the end of 2009

Human Resources GraphIST-4-027918 HAGGLE

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

550.00

600.00

650.00

700.00

Jan-0

6F

eb-0

6M

ar-

06

Apr-

06

May-0

6Jun-0

6Jul-06

Aug-0

6S

ep-0

6O

ct-

06

Nov-0

6D

ec-0

6Jan-0

7F

eb-0

7M

ar-

07

Apr-

07

May-0

7Jun-0

7Jul-07

Aug-0

7S

ep-0

7O

ct-

07

Nov-0

7D

ec-0

7Jan-0

8F

eb-0

8M

ar-

08

Apr-

08

May-0

8Jun-0

8Jul-08

Aug-0

8S

ep-0

8O

ct-

08

Nov-0

8D

ec-0

8Jan-0

9F

eb-0

9M

ar-

09

Apr-

09

May-0

9Jun-0

9Jul-09

Aug-0

9S

ep-0

9O

ct-

09

Nov-0

9D

ec-0

9Jan-1

0F

eb-1

0M

ar-

10

Apr-

10

Originally Estimated (Cumulative)

Actual Spent (Cumulative)

Dec 2009


General Comments (1/2)

• The review team acknowledges the high quality of the work, the results achieved over this third year of the project, the professional presentation and project management, the demonstrations and the open discussions that happened during the review.

• The project is currently on track, all the deliverables have been produced in time and are accepted in their current form.

Reviewers Report


General Comments (2/2)

• HAGGLE is a project that has already made significant progress. The consortium benefits of the presence of high level academic researchers and demonstrates a constant care for implementation.

• The consortium took into account the reviewers recommendations from the previous review. By addressing the problems and issues raised in this review, the project can be successful and have a real impact.

• The project should continue and take special care to the recommendations detailed in the Review Form.

Reviewers Report


Deliverables should be more precise with respect to claims of what has been and will be achieved, integrated or implemented. Vague statements should be avoided in favour of precise, detailed information. For example, avoid statements such as “we implemented the security manager” and use “we implemented function X and Y of the security manager” instead.

Response to Recommendation 1- Upcoming deliverables will be improved in accordance with the above recommendation

Recommendation 1


There seems to be insufficient coordination among partners, many of which seem to work preferably independently rather than in cooperation with other project partners.Partner Cambridge seems particularly to work disjoint from the rest of the consortium (“commitment of Cambridge is less clear than other partners”); management should put more effort into aligning them with the rest of the consortium.Increase the number of joint papers.

Response to Recommendation 2- CAMCL initiated the original concept of Haggle, and has been as collaborative in the project as all the other partners, in particular on the Social Networking aspects, albeit with fewer PMs than originally planned.

Other examples of collaboration between partners are:

Recommendation 2


- All partners work with the same Haggle reference implementation.

- Several partners have spent time in other partners´ organisations, such as Jon Crowcroft from CAMCL having spent time at Thomson in Paris and CNR in Pisa, Silvia Giordano from SUPSI having spent time at CNR, Ioana Rodhe of UPPSALA having spent time at Eurecom with Melek Onen, and Jean-Yves Le-Boudec and Nikodin Ristanovic of EPFL having spent time at Thomson.

– Action Point: Any more?

- More than 20(?) joint papers have been/are being written.- Action Point: Martin_P to collect them from the reports

- Jointly-organised conferences/workshops (eg. Mobiopp, AOC, CoNext)- Action Point: Andrea

- Sharing of teaching material:- Action Point: Silvia to list them

Recommendation 2


Community creation is crucial. Increase the visibility of HAGGLE for example through the creation of community forums or the porting of HAGGLE to other high-visibility platforms (e.g. iPhone). The project should make the software available with appropriate documentation, and make experimental data available as well.

Responses to Recommendation 3- Haggle has become one of the most visible EC projects, and recently the Haggle code was provided on Google.- A preliminary breakdown of Webpage statistics for haggle.googlecode.com is as follows:Action Point: Christian to provide the latest numbers (and add graph)

- 3300 visits, 15000 pageviews, 20% new visits- Sweden (920 visits), US (449), UK (168), Switzerland (149), Germany

(124),China (167)- Downloads of release packages (since June 2009): winmobile (64), android (49), zip (73), tar.gz (59)- Downloads from Mercurial (googlecode) repository: no numbers available

Recommendation 3


Webpage statistics for haggleproject.org:- 2887 visits, 7666 pageviews, 63% new visits, main (39%), publications (14%),

people (9%), downloads (9%), deliverables (8%)- US (394 visits), UK (332), France (309), Germany (246), China (167) ...

Action point: Eiko will get the data about traces downloaded from CRAWDAD

Uni Glasgow implementation (CAMCL)

Uni Helsinki implementation (CAMCL)

Runs on Windows, Mac, Linux. Ported to Android. It compiles on iPhone, but analysis has shown that the iPhone is a handy device, but not a perfect match for Haggle since it only runs 1 task at a time

New ways of increasing dissemination were performed; namely, keynote speeches (CAMCL, SUPSI) tutorials (UPPSALA – ExtremeCom), lectures (UPPSALA - Haggle architecture; CAMCL – data-centric networking as part of a course on MPhil in Advanced Computer Science)

Recommendation 3


Include an analysis of the autonomic communication aspects of HAGGLE in the final report, including highlights and lowlights. HAGGLE is one of the major SAC projects; it is expected to provide feedback on the major challenges in the area of autonomic communications and on the extent to which they have been achieved in the project.

Response to Recommendation 4 - See the combined deliverable D2.3 and D5.3v2: “Update of model for the autonomic and situated behaviour of a Haggle node”, which includes a chapter on the Haggle view of SAC. This chapter includes:

Recommendation 4


- The major challenges in the area of autonomic communications and the contributions made by Haggle:

- architecture- security- forwarding- mobility models- dissemination models- self-* properties- platforms (practical implementations – ie. not only

research, but also implementation and experimentation)

- Action Point: Andrea to write an introduction to D5.3v2 and provide the first pointers to the corresponding deliverables

- Action Point: Melek to add text on Security

Recommendation 4


-Haggle’s perspective on SAC (our experiences, practical considerations and future directions)

- Action Point: ??

Significant (distinguishing) achievements have been made by Haggle in terms of practical implementations. - Differences from DTN (more autonomic), led to distinguishing features for: - forwarding algorithms - security

Recommendation 4


We expect a discussion on the potential exploitation of the project; including industrial, commercial, or lobbying issues. We also expect a detailed exploitation plan at the end of the project.

Response to Recommendation 5- Due to the high visibility and success of this project, Haggle partners have made contacts with other groups and projects interested in furthering the exploitation of the project findings. The following is a list of contacts and outreach made:

- Public Safety Communications (CNR)- The UK national EPSRC project “Contextual Software”,

which is investigating using Haggle for a context collection system- Car-pooling groups (SUPSI)- The NGO “Infrastructures without borders” made contact

with UPPSALA

Recommendation 5


- Orange research labs, Japan- Exploitation through the sustainability of Workshops in the

topic area: AOC 2007, 2008, 2009, SAC 2008, 2010- Haggle's data on mobility models is exploited by other

projects, organisations and also new projects such as SOCIALNETS, RESUME-NET, i.e., the expertise gained is not wasted and new projects do not have to re-develop the same software.

- Action Point: Martin_M: Technicolor and SUPSI exploitation

- Andrea: Coordinate the inputs for Deliv 7.3

Deliverable D7.3: “Socio-Economic Value of the Haggle Paradigm and how to exploit it”, will discuss what is needed to make Haggle more commercially exploitable.

Recommendation 5


Standardisation issues have not been addressed in the project; we expect a section in the final dissemination report discussing and explaining this why standardisation work is not appropriate for disseminating the HAGGLE results.

Response to Recommendation 6- At one level, Haggle is an “application” running on an OS (compliant with Windows and Linux). Such applications are not subject to standardisation. Interoperability with other applications (eg. Facebook, Twitter) and legacy networks (eg. WiFI, Bluetooth, the Internet) has been demonstrated.

- At another level, Haggle is a platform that is implemented on top of an OS, and on which applications run. The Haggle reference implementation could therefore be considered as an architecture for content-centric SAC applications – eg. photoshare); however, other SAC application environments may benefit from a different architecture. It is therefore not expected that a single architecture will be standardised – there is no body looking at this; and the marketplace is changing too fast to standardise.

Recommendation 6


We are not the right people to create a forum between platform providers.

The work in the IRTF-DTN Working Group was evaluated by Uppsala. Their current focus on the so-called bundle protocol was considered to provide increased efficiency over forwarding individual messages to their destination, for cases where several messages had to be sent to the same destination. However, this clearly goes against Haggle's idea of forwarding messages (or data objects) based on their individual metadata. Bundling data objects together therefore does not make sense in Haggle. By searching for matching data objects to exchange during encounters, individual data objects can be streamed back-to-back between two peers.

Recommendation 6


We encourage further work on social networking

Responses to Recommendation 7- Several Y4 activities have been in this area:

- Twitter experiment by EPFL on their Lausanne campus.- An experiment on importing Facebook information conducted by Thomson.- Thomson paper regarding “people rank”- CAMCL involvement in the UK national EPSRC project “Contextual Software”, which is investigating using Haggle for a context collection system.- Liaison with the project SOCIALNETS using Haggle networking and data-centric solutions as its key reference points for enabling the concept of Electronic Social Networks.- Action Point: Martin_M to add slides showing the shift from forwarding to Social Networking

Recommendation 7


We suggest the exploration of semantics, ontologies, folksonomies, distributed systems, and the improvement of current matching algorithms (e.g. by making them approximate, or semantic based). The project has an opportunity to pioneer opportunistic folksonomies.

Responses to Recommendation 8- We agree that the above Recommendation is important, but currently we do not have the expertise within the consortium to further explore these categories. Implicit ontology work is done through the descriptions of the modules, but we are not following any given standard. It would be an interesting topic for a future project.

Recommendation 8


We encourage a strong focus on security and privacy issues.

Responses to Recommendation 9- Many new security solutions dedicated to opportunistic networks (Haggle) have been proposed dealing with data confidentiality, integrity and key management. The problem of privacy has been analyzed as a communication privacy issue, therefore, dedicated solutions allowing a secure and privacy preserving forwarding mechanism have been proposed. It is considered that the work that has been done on security is in-line with the text in the DoW.

Recommendation 9


Project partners must remember to acknowledge HAGGLE in their publications relevant to and supported by the project.

Responses to Recommendation 10This is currently being done, as can be seen in the recent publications on the Haggle website.

Recommendation 10


Deliverables should concentrate on reporting scientific and technical results. Personal opinions on the scientific policies of the EU have no place in project deliverables (D3.3), and should be omitted. Deliverables not respecting this recommendation will be rejected on the final review.

Responses to Recommendation 11 - Partners concur with this statement and will avoid any personal opinions.

Recommendation 11


The feasibility of porting HAGGLE onto Symbian devices should be verified two months after the review. Shall the time needed for porting and testing exceed the remaining project duration, the goals for partner LG should be redefined.

Responses to Recommendation 12- LG tried to accomplish the above task, but it was not possible. They have stopped their participation and no more money will be paid.

Recommendation 12


A better comparison with other existing commercial approaches should be made to avoid overselling the results.

Responses to Recommendation 13- There are ad hoc applications for (eg) iPhone, but we are not aware of similar dedicated commercial approaches.

- We developed an SDK; others should develop the applications

Recommendation 13


Final Report PAR, PMR

January 09 – April 10

Status of final PAR & PMR


Achievements and PMs (but not Costs)

5 Sections:

1. Publishable Executive Summary

2. Summary of objectives and major achievements for the reporting period

3. WP progress (per Task)

4. Consortium Management

5. Dissemination and Use Plans

Final Report PAR & PMR



Project objectives

Project organization

Summary of achievements of the reporting period

Expected end results

Intentions of Use and Impact

The main elements of the publishable results of the plan for using and disseminating the knowledge

Project components

1. Publishable Executive Summary

Same as last report

Same as last report

Get the info from the rest of the report

Same as last report

Same as last report

Same as last report

Same as last report



Overview of Objectives and relation to the SOA

- Summary of Achievements (per WP)

- WP1: Node Architecture-- WP7: Dissemination, Standards, Expl.

Success stories

Responses to recommendations from the previous Review

Problems encountered during the reporting period

2. Summary of objectives and major achievements

Same as last report

Get the info from the rest of the report

Inputs needed

Take from the Jul-Dec´09 6-month report

None



WPs that are active (according to the AM3 GANTT) are:

WP1 (Node Architecture) T1.1: Communication models - until end Dec 2009 T1.2: Haggle node components - until end Dec 2009 T1.3: Haggle Information Space (node “Datastore”) - until end Dec 2009 T1.4: Haggle Node Brain (autonomous “Managers”) - until end Dec 2009

WP2 (Communication Architecture) T2.1: Forwarding Paradigms - finished in 2008 T2.2: Interaction between forwarding and information space - finished in 2008 T2.3: Autonomic features of Haggle network - until end Feb 2010 T2.4: Haggle and legacy networks - until end Feb 2010

WP3 (Integration and Trials) T3.1: Platforms - until end April 2010 T3.2: Integration - until end April 2010 T3.3: Trials - until end April 2010 T3.4: (choice of) Haggle devices - finished in 2007

3. WP Progress (per Task)




WP4 (Trusted Communities and Secure Communications) T4.1: Trust and Cooperation - until end Dec 2009 T4.2: Secure Communication Mechanisms - until end Dec 2009 T4.3: Integration of Trust and Cooperation with Communication Security

- until end Dec 2009

WP5 (Mobility-aware Models and Measurement Test-beds) T5.1: Mobility models/measurement - finished in 2008 T5.2: User pattern models and social network measurement - until end Dec 2009 T5.3: Autonomic mobility model - until end Feb 2010 T5.4: Monitoring architecture for experiments - until end Dec 2009

WP6 (Application design) T6.1: Application and task selection - finished in 2008 T6.2: Feedback mechanisms - finished in 2008 T6.3: Building communities of users - until end April 2010 T6.4: Potential for new application domains - until end April 2010





WP7 (Dissemination, Standardisation and Exploitation) T7.1: Dissemination and Standardisation - until end April 2010 T7.2: Cooperation with other projects - until end April 2010 T7.3: Promoting the visibility of the SAC initiative - until end April 2010 T7.4: Socio-economic value of Haggle platforms - until end April 2010





Tasks (duration) (WP1 Leader: SUPSI)

Task 1.1 Communication Models for Haggle World (M1 – M48)

To identify the desirable communication models for a Haggle Node. This Task should provide a classification of communication models, intended as the various paradigms through which information is successfully exchanged in real societies.

Achievement Inputs from the 6 month reports Jan – June 09 & July – Dec 09 will be inserted. Just add achievements from Jan – April 10 (if any)

Task 1.2 Haggle Node Components (M1 – M48)

To identify and design the components of the Haggle Node architecture.


Task 1.3 Haggle Information Space (HIS) (M1 – M48)

To specify and design the Haggle Node Information Space (HIS).


WP1: Node ArchitecturePartner Inputs Required: Achievements per Task



Tasks (duration) (WP1 Leader: SUPSI)

Task 1.4 Haggle Node Brain (M1 – M48)

To identify and design the intelligences of the Haggle Node: the Haggle node Brain.


WP1: Node Architecture

Partner Inputs Required: Achievements per Task




Tasks (duration) (WP2 Leader: EPFL)

Task 2.3 Autonomic features of Haggle network (M20 – M50)

To exploit and stress these capabilities by studying and selecting the most advanced algorithms and methods for achieving a task by the Haggle community.


Task 2.4 Haggle and legacy networks (M31 – M50)

To consider the different ways to interconnect with legacy networks, and in particular with the Internet. .


WP2: Communication Architecture


Tasks (duration) (WP3 Leader: Thomson)

Task 3.1 Platforms (M1 – M52)

To specify and prepare the various platforms on which Haggle will be implemented


Task 3.2 Integration (M7 – M52)

To take output from WP1, WP2 and WP4 and to produce Haggle successive releases.


Task 3.3 Trials(M12 – M52)

To perform trials, with the goal of:- attracting users (ie. make Haggle visible) and- collecting data for the analysis of Haggle.


WP3: Integration and Trials




Status of final PAR & PMRPartner Inputs Required: Achievements per Task

Tasks (duration) (WP4 Leader: Eurecom)

Task 4.1 Trust and Communication (M1 – M48)

To build trust among parties so that they can rely on one another, and to assure that the overall application carried out by the trusted parties takes place in a trusted manner in the face of malicious attacks or selfish behaviour.


Task 4.2 Secure Communication Mechanisms (M1 – M48)

To provide security mechanisms in order to protect the communication mechanism against malicious attacks with a particular emphasis on the forwarding mechanism.


Task 4.3 Integration of Trust and Cooperation with Communication Security (M1 – M48)

To take into account the requirements of communication mechanisms such as forwarding and network coding, in order to design trust and cooperation enforcement mechanisms that are suitable for and integrated within the communication mechanism.


WP4: Trusted Communities and Secure Communications




Tasks (duration) (WP5 Leader: Uppsala)

Task 5.2 User pattern models and social network measurement (M7 – M48)

To understand how small changes in the social behaviour of users can impact the way Haggle should be designed.


Task 5.3 Autonomic mobility model (M12 – M50)

To enable the protocol to learn movement patterns and proximity of other nodes by inspecting the probability vector.


Task 5.4 Monitoring architecture for experiments (M1 – M48)

To measure the efficiency of the forwarding principles and the utilization of the available resources.


WP5: Mobility Aware Models and Measurement Testbeds


Tasks (duration) (WP6 Leader: CAMCL)

Task 6.3 Building communities of users (M18 – M52)

To develop these communities in two ways. First, making our Haggle capable devices (Stargates, PDAs, cell phones) for local experimental evaluation. Second, making the software publicly and freely available on source forge so that potential users can install Haggle on their device by themselves.


Task 6.4 Potential for new application domains (M18 – M52)

To demonstrate that with the Haggle communication paradigm, it is possible to collect strategic information that can enable to develop an efficient, intelligent and easy to use system for health, based on monitoring of biochemical and functional parameters, that enable the ubiquitous management of citizens’ health status, to support health professionals in taking the best possible decision for prevention, diagnosis and treatment, to assist health professionals in the individualization of disease prevention, diagnoses and treatment.


WP6: Application Design




Tasks (duration) (WP7 Leader: CNR)

Task 7.1 Dissemination and Standardization (M1 – M52)

To promote project results at the widest possible basis.


Task 7.2 Cooperation with other projects (M1 – M52)

To promote the cooperation with other projects on autonomic and opportunistic networking.


Task 7.3 Promoting the visibility of the SAC initiative (M4 – M52)

To increase world wide the visibility and impact of European activities on situated and autonomic communications.


WP7: Dissemination, Standardization and Exploitation




Tasks (duration) (WP7 Leader: CNR)

Task 7.4 Potential for new application domains (M18 – M52)

To study the market possibilities for a Haggle-like solution based on the results of experimental studies with testing applications.


WP7: Dissemination, Standardization and Exploitation




Problems encountered and corrective actions

Timetable (GANTT chart)

Other issues

4. Consortium Management

None

Take from Amendment 3

Amendment 3



Overall Strategy for the Dissemin. and Exploitation of the Knowledge gained from the project

Exploitable Knowledge and its Use (IPR)

Dissemination of Knowledge

Publishable results

Conclusion

Usage statistics for haggleproject.org

5. Dissemination and Use Plan

Same as last report

Probably none?

Inputs needed

Public deliverables, papers, presentations

Blah blah

Input needed



Dissemination (inputs required)

Planned/actual Dates Type Type of audience

Countries addressed

Approx. size of audience

Partner involved



Table 4: Budgeted vs Actual PMs(Actual PMs are from Jan – Dec 2009)


PERIOD: January 2009 - April 2010

WP0: Project Management Actual total: 6.3 1.75 4.50

Planned total: 5.3 1.50 3.82

WP1: Node Architecture Actual total: 25.8 2.55 3.00 2.05 14.22 3.00 1.00

Planned total: 20.8 2.28 1.42 2.84 7.42 4.56 2.28

WP2: Communication Architecture Actual total: 28.0 4.57 5.00 2.00 6.35 7.67 1.00 1.42

Planned total: 34.0 5.14 5.14 4.14 8.28 4.00 4.42 2.84

WP3: Integration and Trials Actual total: 40.5 2.12 3.00 9.00 1.85 4.53 6.50 5.50 8.00

Planned total: 25.7 2.24 2.00 4.62 3.00 2.36 3.00 2.50 6.00

WP4: Trusted Communities and Secure Communications Actual total: 22.3 1.50 5.00 1.20 14.62

Planned total: 16.6 1.50 2.56 1.42 11.14

WP5: Mobility Aware Communication Measurement Actual total: 28.9 4.20 3.90 9.00 1.50 5.76 4.50

Planned total: 27.7 6.00 1.70 9.56 2.00 3.00 4.28 1.14

Actual total: 12.0 5.00 2.00 0.20 4.79

Planned total: 7.6 4.50 0.62 2.50

Actual total: 24.5 1.50 2.50 5.00 2.35 4.79 5.00 2.50 0.82

Planned total: 17.6 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.24 2.50 4.62 1.74 1.50

Actual total: 188.2 14.1 23.5 35.0 15.5 41.8 20.0 25.0 5.3 8.0

Total Project Person-month Planned total: 155.3 16.4 19.1 23.8 20.4 21.8 20.9 21.6 5.3 6.0

CA

MC

L

Eur

ecom

Upp

sala

EP

FL

SU

PS

I

CN

R

WP7: Dissemination, Standardisation and Exploitation

WP6: Application Design

TO

TA

LS

Th

om

son

Mar

tel

LG


Explanation of any deviations

Partners should provide explanations, where necessary

We will have spent more PMs than planned, but not exceeded the total budget. Some partners will have overspent; others will have underspent.



Final Report Production Plan

1. Publishable Executive Summary Martin Check by Christophe

2. Summary of major achievements Martin for the reporting period

3. WP Progress (per Task) Alicia sends Partners send WP leaders template to their input to write the WP partners (with Alicia summary reports objectives pre-filled)

4. Consortium Management Martin Check by Christophe

5. Dissemination Inputs Alicia sends Partners send template to their input to partners Alicia

6. PMs (Table 4) & Alicia sends Partners send Costs (Table 3) template to their input to Alicia

partners and Sandra

May 31st June 10th June 15thMay 1st



Deliverable status

0.5: Periodic Activity Report Y4Periodic Management Report Y4 (Martel) May 2010

0.6: Final Project Report (Martel) May 2010

1.4: Final Specification of the ADULT-Haggle (SUPSI) Sep 2009

2.3: Autonomic capabilities of Haggle (EPFL) Sep 2009

2.4: Interconnecting Haggle with legacy networks (EPFL) Sep 2009

3.4: Third official release of Haggle. Analysis (Thomson) Apr 2010 report of the third trial

3.5: Final release of Haggle (Thomson) Apr 2010

4.3: Prototype of trust and security mechanisms (Eurecom) Sep 2009

5.3v2: Update of Model for the autonomic and (Uppsala) Sep 2009situated behaviour of a Haggle node


Deliverable status

5.4v2: Final test-bed for repeatable experiments (Uppsala) July 2009and evaluation of mobile Haggle nodes

6.4: Experimental evaluation (CAMCL) Apr 2010

7.3: Socio-Economical Value of the HaggleParadigm and how to exploit it (CNR) Apr 2010


Cost Status at the end of 2008

65%

Partner Total budget Accepted Cost Claims to date: CC1+CC2+CC3

Expected CC4 1.1.09 - 31.12.09

Average yearly spend

Likely amount of budget left at the end of 2009

Thomson 511,565.50 460,289.81 153,430.00 153,430.00 -102,154.31

Intel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CAMCL 602,000.00 193,969.46 64,656.00 64,656.00 343,374.54

UPPSALA 784,320.00 476,276.81 194,426.00 167,675.70 113,617.19

EPFL 548,740.00 366,123.18 122,041.00 122,041.00 60,575.82

SUPSI 711,110.00 498,482.78 166,161.00 166,161.00 46,466.22

CNR 437,769.00 316,424.09 85,525.00 100,487.27 35,819.91

EURECOM 423,855.50 365,831.87 96,041.00 115,468.22 -38,017.37

MARTEL 238,460.00 155,396.45 65,538.00 55,233.61 17,525.55

LG 142,180.00 43,424.76 * 46,935.00 45,179.88 51,820.24

Total 4,400,000.00 2,876,219.21 994,753.00 990,332.68 529,027.79

* LG will only claim for 6 months

Accurate Cost Claimcalculated for 2009

Only 65% of budget spent after 75% duration of the project triggered thoughts at the end of 2008 about an extension

Average yearly spendbased on CC1 - CC3

PMs claimed for Jan - June 2009,multiplied by the PM rate used in CC3


Cost Status at the end of 2008

Partner Total budget Total payments to date (1+2+3+4)

CC1+2+3

Thomson511,565.50 460,408.95 460,289.81

Intel0.00 0.00 0.00

CAMCL602,000.00 338,231.91 193,969.46

UPPSALA784,320.00 705, 888.00 476,276.81

EPFL548,740.00 493,866.00 366,123.18

SUPSI711,110.00 639,999.00 498,482.78

CNR437,769.00 393,992.10 316,424.09

EURECOM423,855.50 381,469.95 365,831.87

MARTEL238,460.00 214,614.00 155,396.45

LG142,180.00 127,962.00 43,424.76

Total4,400,000.00 3,756,431.91 2,876,219.21


Cost Claim 4

The Cost Claim Period 4 is January 2009 to April 2010

… but costs associated with the review (2nd July) can probably also be claimed.

We should provide a good estimate of PMs and costs for the review, but will be allowed to submit an update after the review costs are known.


Agenda

28th April:









Agenda

16:00: WP presentations:

• Reference Architecture Uppsala

• Software/Integration statusUppsala/Thomson

• Security Eurecom

• Social Networking CAMCL

18:00: Close of Day 1

19:30: Dinner


Agenda

29th April:

09:00: Final Review (Friday 2nd July, Barcelona – FIREweek) Thomson• Agenda• Demos• .....

13:00 - 14:00: Lunch





Action Points

AP3: Deliverables to be provided by 15th June at the latest:

- D0.5 (Martel)

- D0.6 (Martel)

- D2.4 (EPFL, UPPSALA, Thomson)

- D2.3 & D5.3v2 (UPPSALA, EPFL, CNR)

- D3.4 & D3.5 (Thomson)

- D6.4 (CAMCL, EPFL)

- D7.3 (CNR, CAMCL (Healthcare & Public Safety Communications), SUPSI, Thomson

(Mobiclique/ Paytrain patents & algorithm, EPFL)


Action Points

AP4: All partners to send their meeting presentations to Christian

AP8: All partners to send copies of papers (or just the links) to Christian to put on the Website (remember the acknowledgement to Haggle and the EC, and joint papers are preferred)

AP11: Martin_P to check what are eligible costs after the end of April

AP12: End of project report:

May 3rd:

• Martin_P to send out the draft of the PAR with the Achievements, conference/journal papers, etc. for Jan - Dec 2009 already entered

• Martin_P to send out the draft of the PMR, with the PMs for Jan - Dec 2009 already entered


Action Points

AP12: End of project report (contd.):

May 15th:• Partners to return the PAR, having checked the text entered by

Martel is OK, and with their Achievements, conference/ journal papers, etc. for Jan - April 2010 added

• Partners to return the PMR, having checked that the PMs entered by Martel are OK and with their PMs for Jan - April 2010 added (Table 4) and with the Costs for Jan 2009 - April 2010 entered (Table 3).

May 30th:• WP leaders to write their WP summaries (for Jan 2009 - April

2010)• All deliverables complete, for final checking

June 15th:• Everything for the review submitted to the EC


Action Points

AP13: Recommendation 2Have any other partners spent time in other partners´ organisations, than the following:

- Jon Crowcroft from CAMCL having spent time at Thomson and CNR

- Silvia Giordano from SUPSI having spent time at CNR

- Ioana Rodhe of UPPSALA having spent time at Eurecom

- Jean-Yves Le-Boudec and Nikodin Ristanovic of EPFL having spent time at Thomson.

Martin_P to collect a list of the joint papers that have been written

Andrea to collect a list of the jointly-organised conferences/ workshops (eg. Mobiopp, AOC, CoNext)

Silvia to collect a list of teaching material that has been shared between partners


Action Points

AP14: Recommendation 3

Christian to provide the latest numbers (and add graphs)• 3300 visits, 15000 pageviews, 20% new visits

• Sweden (920 visits), US (449), UK (168), Switzerland (149), Germany (124),China (167)

• Downloads of release packages (since June 2009): winmobile (64), android (49), zip (73), tar.gz (59)

• Webpage statistics for haggleproject.org:• 2887 visits, 7666 pageviews, 63% new visits, main (39%),

publications (14%), people (9%), downloads (9%), deliverables (8%)

• US (394 visits), UK (332), France (309), Germany (246), China (167) ...

Eiko to get the data about traces downloaded from CRAWDAD


Action Points


Andrea to write an introduction to D5.3v2 and provide the first pointers to the corresponding deliverables

Melek to add text on Security

?? to add text on Haggle’s perspective on SAC (our experiences, practical considerations and future directions)


Martin_M to collect Technicolor and SUPSI exploitation plans for Deliv 7.3

Andrea to coordinate the inputs for Deliv 7.3


Action Points


Martin_M to provide slides showing the shift from forwarding to Social Networking

AP18: All partners to provide publication references (and citations) to Jon for his presentation in the review on the impact of Haggle on the SOA


Agenda

29th April:

09:00: Final Review (Friday 2nd July, Barcelona – FIREweek) Thomson• Agenda• Demos• .....

13:00 - 14:00: Lunch





Agenda

30th April:

09:00 - 12:00: Discussions about Demo, SW, .... Thomson• Optional, only if necessary ....

12:00: Lunch (for those that are still around)


Review Agenda09:00 – 09:30: Private meeting between the PO and the reviewers

09:30 – 09:40: Welcome and introductions

09:40 – 09:50: Outlining the agenda for the dayMartin_M

09:50 – 10:10: Summary of achievements during the reporting period and the corresponding resources spent Martin_P

10:10 – 10:30: Responses to the recommendations from the previous reviewMartin_M

10:30 – 10:50: Coffee Break

10:50 – 11:10: General dissemination performed during the reporting periodAndrea

11:10 – 11:40: Selected technical papers for presentation (eg. integration of Haggle with infrastructure) George, Stratis

11:40 – 12:45: Experiments performed during the reporting period:

SIGCOMMTechnicolor

EPFLGeorge

UPPSALAChristian

12:45 – 14:00: Lunch


Review Agenda14:00 – 14:20: Impacts of the project (advances in the SOA) Jon,

Martin_M

Action Point to provide publication references (and citations) to Jon

- initiated the shift from MANETs and DTNs towards pocket networks

- generation of the first contact graphs for these types of communication (source of data for others to use, and a reflection of societal movements and activities)

- many scientists now use such contact graphs as a methodology

- first architecture (and software) for autonomic communications, but oriented to mobile phone implementation (Bluetooth, WLAN) - current Smartphones don’t do this yet

- “people are the network” (before Facebook). Facebook doesn’t do this on a mobile device. Concept of discovery (building the social network) is different from Facebook

- the Haggle topology (ego-centric, decentralised) has implications for security and privacy …. led to solutions for problems that are only now emerging elsewhere (also in fixed network environments)

- we were the first to prove that opportunistic networks are feasible. Today, content-centric network specialists (eg. Van Jacobsen) cite Haggle

- a lot of people (eg. students) learned a lot about writing software for mobile devices with limited resources

- impact through future exploitation

- impact on other FP7 projects (eg. Socialnets)


Review Agenda14:20 – 15:20: The evolution of Haggle since the beginning of the project:

1. Reference Architecture & ImplementationChristian

- architecture (data-centric networking, using “searching” to replace networking, ranking, easy to plug-in new Managers)

- implementation (lessons learned: implemented on many platforms, limitations of Bluetooth, Java -> C, code is openly available)

2. Forwarding -> Data Dissemination -> Social Networking Jon, Eiko, Andrea

(joint paper from SUPSI, CNR, CAMCL)

- forwarding algorithms (give examples)

- context-based forwarding (give examples)

- social networks (give examples, eg. communities)

3. Security Melek, Refik

- differences from Mobileman/ad hoc networks of no end-end connectivity and content-based forwarding (security implications of forwarding mechanisms, trust models and privacy)

15:20 – 15:50: Exploitation Plans and new areas needing researchMartin_M, Salvatore

15:50 – 16:20: Private meeting between the PO and the reviewers

16:20 – 16:30: Feedback and close

plenary meeting paris, 28th – 30th april 2010

Documents