NeTS NOSS: Networking of Sensor Systems

1
NeTS NOSS Networking of Sensor Systems

• Guru Parulkar
• Computer and Network Systems Division
• National Science Foundationgparulka_at_nsf.gov

2
Important to Understand

• New NeTS solicitation is not out yet
• In the pipeline
• Likely to be out in a couple of weeks
• Likely due date February
• My comments cannot be definitive
• Allow for solicitation to change
• Nothing guaranteed until solicitation is out

3

• The biggest impediment to progress is not any
  single technical challenge
• It is the lack of an overall architecture that
  would increase composability and
  interoperability
  Culler, Shenker, Stoica

4
Exec Summary

• NSF NOSS focus area emphasis
• common architectures
• reusable systems and science
• To enable plug and play sensor network substrate
  
• Likely focus going forward
• Realization of a couple of sensor network
  architectures
• Realization of a couple of programming systems

5
Agenda

• Program context and goals
• FY04 and FY05 competition
• Future directions
• Proposals and review process
• Summary
• What about GENI?

6
Need Plug and Play Sensor Network Substrate
7
Focus of the Focus Area

• Monitoring Managing Spaces and Things

Applications
Store
Comm.
uRobots actuate
MEMS sensing
Proc
Power
technology
Miniature Connections to Physical World
8
Type of Solutions Sought
CommercialSolutions
DeployedInfrastructureApplications
ReusableSystems Science
Accelerate Progress Realize Full Potential
Close Coupling Required
FoundationsResearch
ExperimentalSystems
9
Agenda

• Program context and goals
• FY04 and FY05 competition
• Future directions
• Proposals and review process
• Summary

10
FY04 and FY05 Competition

• FY04
• 130 projects
• 15 awards
• 11.6M
• Four panels
• Models
• Algorithms and protocols
• Architectures and systems
• Network programming

• FY05
• 130 projects
• 19 awards
• 11M
• 4.5 panels
• Models
• Algorithms and protocols
• Architectures and systems
• Network programming
• Security

11
NOSS FY04 Awards

• Models
• Funneling Impulses in Sensor Networks, Columbia
• Communication Patterns for Collaborative
  Reasoning in Sensor Networks, Stanford
• Algorithms and Protocols
• Semantic Internetworking of Sensor Systems for
  Efficient In-Network Information Processing,
  Boston Univ
• Exploring the Design Space of Sensor Networks
  Using Route-aware MAC Protocols, NC State

12
NOSS FY04 Awards Cont

• Architectures and Systems
• Creating A Wireless Sensor Net Architecture, UC
  Berkeley
• Collaborative Multiscale Processing Arch for
  Sensor Net, Rice
• Ultra Low-Power Self-Configuring Wireless Sensor
  Net, Cornell
• Lightweight and Flexible Sensor Network
  Management, Univ of Michigan (Management)
• PARIS A Framework for Privacy Augmented
  Relaying of Information from Sensors, Rutgers
  (Privacy)
• Network Programming
• Programming Language and Middleware Support for
  Sensor Network Applications, UC Davis
• Sensor Coordination using Active Dataspaces, SRI
• High-Level and Efficient Sensor Network Programs,
  UCLA
• Data-Centric Active Querying in Sensor Networks,
  USC

13
NOSS FY05 Awards

• Models
• Towards a Theory of In-Network Computation for
  Surveillance and Monitoring in Wireless Sensor
  Networks, UIUC, UTA, UCB
• Algorithms and System Support for Data Integrity
  in Wireless Sensor Networks, UCLA
• Routing and Topology Design of Hierarchical
  Sensor Networks, UMD
• A Cross Layer Protocol Suite for Correlated Data
  Gathering in Wireless Sensor Networks, Georgia
  Tech
• Algorithms and Protocols
• RFID-Based Sensor Networks Exploiting Diversity
  and Redundancy, UIUC, Stony Brook
• Mobility-assisted Network Deployment and
  Maintenance, USC
• Distributed Algorithms for Sensor-Aided
  Directories to Mobile Objects, Iowa State, RPI
• Exploiting mobility for information exchange and
  collaborative decision-making in sensor networks,
  Wisconsin

14
NOSS FY05 Awards Cont

• Architectures and Systems
• Tenet An Architecture for Tiered Embedded
  Networks, USC, UCLA
• WaveScope - An Adaptive Wireless Sensor Network
  System for High Data-Rate Applications, MIT
• Imaging Sensor Nets from Concept to Prototypes,
  UCSB
• Controllable Node Mobility for Mission-Oriented
  Sensor Networks, Penn State, Bell Labs
• Networking the Digital Ocean, USC, MIT, Intel
• Adaptivity in Sensor Networks for Optimized
  Distributed Sensing and Signal Processing, Rice

15
NOSS FY05 Awards Cont

• Programming Systems
• Regiment A Macroprogramming Language and Runtime
  System for Sensor Networks, Harvard
• State-Based Specifications for Controlling and
  Configuring Sensor Networks, Iowa, OSU, UTA
• Macroprogramming Robust Distributed Applications
  in Sensor Networks, USC
• Fluid Software Infrastructure for Wireless
  Sensor Networks, Washington Univ
• Security
• SNIDS Sensor Network Intrusion Detection
  Systems, UC Davis

16
Agenda

• Program context and goals
• FY04 and FY05 competition
• Future Directions
• Proposals and review process
• Summary
• What about GENI?

17
Type of Solutions Sought
CommercialSolutions
DeployedInfrastructureApplications
ReusableSystems Science
Accelerate Progress Realize Full Potential
Close Coupling Required
FoundationsResearch
ExperimentalSystems
18
Culler, Shenker, Stoica Conjecture

• The biggest impediment to progress is not any
  single technical challenge
• It is the lack of an overall architecture that
  would increase composability and interoperability

19
Sensor Networking Today
Appln
EnviroTrack
Hood
TinyDB
Regions
FTSP
Dir.Diffusion
SPIN
Transport
TTDD
Trickle
Deluge
Drip
MMRP
Arrive
Routing
TORA
Ascent
MintRoute
CGSR
AODV
GPSR
ARA
DSR
GSR
GRAD
DBF
DSDV
TBRPF
Scheduling
Resynch
SPAN
FPS
GAF
ReORg
Topology
PC
Yao
SMAC
WooMac
PAMAS
BMAC
TMAC
WiseMAC
Link
Pico
802.15.4
Bluetooth
Phy
eyes
RadioMetrix
CC1000
nordic
RFM
Thanks to David Culler
20
Challenge of the Moment

• How can we, the research community, lead the
  sensor network revolution by
• Championing an architecture
• Realizing the architecture in hardware and
  software
• Building testbeds and applications
• Building on each others work
• Standardizing protocols and their implementations
• to enable a programmable, robust, secured,
  manageable sensor network substrate

21
What You Can Do?

• Propose and develop
• Another compelling architecture
• Architectural components in the context of an
  architecture
• Routing, in-network processing, localization,
  calibration
• Energy and resource management
• Higher-level naming services
• Storage services
• Management and control
• Security and privacy
• Measurement, integrity
• Create reference implementation of an
  architecture
• On important platforms
• For a class of applications
• To demonstrate reusability of architecture and
  components
• Help evaluate important architectural trade-offs

22
The Other Impediment

• Programming Systems
• System and application programming
• Complete systems
• Mature enough that others can use

23
What You Can Do?

• Propose and develop
• Another compelling programming paradigm
• Help realize one of existing paradigms
• programmer control for resource management
• compile and run-time optimization techniques
• code annotation and profiling
• optimized code distribution mechanisms
• program analysis techniques
• In the context of sensor network architecture

24
Rest of the Day

• Invited talk by David Clark
• How to think about architecture in general
• Example architectures
• Invited talk by Feng Zhao
• Network programming
• Example programming systems
• Summary of the PI panel discussions

25
Topics Outside The Scope

• Sensor development in isolation
• New applications by themselves
• A whole range of embedded systems
• System development with
• No new capabilities
• No research content
• Modeling and algorithmic efforts
• Not aimed at real systems
• Theoretical work
• Not well motivated with its real relevance
• If in doubt please ask or send email

26
A Proposal that is NOT a Match

• represents tremendous cost to all parties and
  reduces effectiveness of the entire system
• Costs include precious time and efforts of
• PIs
• Graduate students and staff
• Departmental administrative staff
• Research office staff
• NSF administrative staff
• NSF program director(s) division director
• Reviewers
• Reduces pool of reviewers

27
Agenda

• Program context and goals
• FY04 and FY05 competition
• Future directions
• Proposals and review process
• Summary
• What about GENI?

28
Charge to the Review Panel

• My presentation from Information Meeting
• That is, this presentation
• Guidance to put emphasis on high impact
• As opposed to flawless incremental proposals
• Guidance via email and a presentation at the panel

29
NSF Funding Decisions

• Objective and fair peer review process
• Not as good in funding high impact, bold, or
  high risk, high reward projects
• Why?
• Stiff competition leads to recommendation of
  incremental flawless projects as opposed to bold
  and potentially risky projects
• Consensus building leads to conservative
  decisions
• Decision makers do not want to fail

30
Emphasis on High Impact Projects

• High impact means more than just good papers it
  has to change practice for the better!
• It is OK to fund high-risk high-reward projects
• Even if some do not succeed
• Even if they dont have all details worked out
• It is NOT OK only to fund flawless projects that
  would predictably lead to incremental results

31
Proposals

• 10-15 acceptance rate
• Too competitive and discouraging
• Note 70 acceptance rate
• Among proposals liked by two panelists
• Majority of the proposals not serious candidates
• Why?
• PIs too busy and dont put in the necessary
  efforts
• Strong candidates too busy to serve on panel

32
Issues with Proposals
Sub Area
Blue Sky Vision
Application Class
TechnologyChoices
ProposedSolutions
Well EstablishedMethodologies
Abstract ProblemFormulation

• Overall approach reasonable
• In many cases
• Abstract Problem gt Methodology gt Solution a
  hammer looking for a nail
• Link to real sensor network vision is missing

33
My Recommendations

• Slow down
• Take time efforts to develop a compelling
  proposal
• Talk by Ray last year
• Dont lose sight of the big picture
• Sensor network architectures
• Network programming
• Outline expected results and their potential
  impact
• In the context of the big picture

34
Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process
Focus AreaCommitment

• Send your best ideas consistent with focus area
• Save others for appropriate solicitation
• DONT submit same proposal to multiple programs
• NSF committed to providing all help

FundingDecisions
35
Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process
Focus AreaCommitment
InformationalMeeting
ProposalSubmission
Review Panels

• Suggest strong panelists
• Volunteer to be a panelist
• NSF committed to running objectiveand thorough
  review process

FundingDecisions
CommunityBuilding
ExecuteResearch
HighlightResults
36
Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process
Focus AreaCommitment
InformationalMeeting
ProposalSubmission
Review Panels

• Committed to funding best in support of focus
  area goals
• Due consideration to high risk high reward prop
• Committed to be responsive and timely

FundingDecisions
CommunityBuilding
ExecuteResearch
HighlightResults
37
Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process
Focus AreaCommitment
InformationalMeeting
ProposalSubmission
Review Panels

• NSF funded workshops and PI meetings
• ACM/IEEE conferences, workshops, journals

FundingDecisions
CommunityBuilding
ExecuteResearch
HighlightResults
38
A Perspective on NSF Program Director Role

• What if the final symphony turns out to be a
  cacophony?
• You are not providing your input into the system
• Program director is not doing his/her job well

39
Exec Summary

• NSF NOSS focus area emphasis
• common architecture
• reusable systems and science
• To enable plug and play sensor network substrate
  
• Likely focus going forward
• Realization of a couple of sensor network
  architectures
• Realization of a couple of programming systems

40
Agenda

• Program context and goals
• FY04 and FY05 competition
• Future directions
• Proposals and review process
• Summary
• What about GENI?