NeTS NOSS: Networking of Sensor Systems NSF 05-505 Guru Parulkar Computer and Network Systems Division National Science Foundation gparulka@nsf.gov

Exec Summary NSF NOSS focus area emphasis common architecture reusable systems and science To enable plug and play sensor network substrate High impact projects preferred over flawless incremental projects Beware of “a hammer looking for a nail” trap “Abstract problem => Methodology => Solution” 12 April 2019

Agenda Program context and goals FY04 competition FY05 focus and non-focus Proposals and review process Summary 12 April 2019

Need Plug and Play Sensor Network Substrate New Applications Applications Sensor Network Infrastructure (Programmable, Robust, Secured, Manageable) Sensors New Sensors 12 April 2019

Network Technology Gap Focus of the Focus Area Monitoring & Managing Spaces and Things Applications Network Programming Network Technology Gap HW/SW Systems Protocols Algorithms Privacy Security Network Architecture One way to answer this question is to say we want to close the technology gap. The technology gap between the disruptive technologies and their potential applications -- closing this gap will help us realize the target applications and thus realize the potential of the sensor technologies. Of course we have closed this gap for very specific applications in a vertically designed solutions. The question is can we close this gap in a generalized way? This will require making concerted or coordinated progress on four fronts or in four areas. And they are network architecture -- again an architecture that can be generalized and can help define common interfaces and facilitate reusability of components. Next area has to do with the design of algorithms for specific problems and incorporating them into protocols that can be implemented as per the network architecture. Similarly we have to find privacy and security solutions and this time it is our opportunity to think of these problems and solutions from the beginning as opposed to after thought. The next area has to do with realization of these solutions into hardware and software systems -- these systems can be for example wireless network interface, OS mechanisms, protocol stack implementations, and others. The last part has to do with network programming interfaces and their implementations -- coming up with abstractions that are easy to program and then automatic tools to map the abstraction on a network of sensor devices while taking into consideration all the trade-offs and/or constraints of the underlying network nodes while exploiting their capabilities. Please understand that these four areas obviously don’t represent protocol layers -- these are just four areas or fronts where we need significant progress to realize our objectives. The next few slides talk about each one of them in some detail and the panels will also address these topics in some detail. Store Comm. uRobots actuate MEMS sensing Proc Power technology Miniature Connections to Physical World 12 April 2019

Type of Solutions Sought Commercial Solutions Deployed Infrastructure Applications Focus of This Program Reusable Systems & Science Accelerate Progress Realize Full Potential Close Coupling Required Foundations Research Experimental Systems 12 April 2019

Expected Results of Program Foundations research Theoretical, algorithms and systems Sensor network architecture Systems Several networkable sensor platforms: range of capabilities OS and protocols stacks Network programming environments, in-network data processing Many local testbeds with applications Education and Training New graduate and undergraduate courses with experimental projects Many graduate students with hands-on experience Identifiable distinct community with members from sensors, embedded hardware, os, networking, middleware, applications 12 April 2019

Agenda Program context and goals FY04 competition FY05 focus and non-focus Proposals and review process Summary 12 April 2019

NOSS FY-04 ~130 projects 15 projects selected for awards ~$11.6M Four panels Models Algorithms and protocols Architectures and systems Network programming 12 April 2019

NOSS FY-04 Awards Models Algorithms and Protocols 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 April 2019

NOSS FY-04 Awards Architectures and Systems Network Programming 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 12 April 2019

Agenda Program context and goals FY04 competition FY05 focus and non-focus Proposals and review process Summary 12 April 2019

FY-05 Solicitation Essentially Same -- Some Difference in Mindset

Tremendous Pull: Developing Too Quickly Applications Solutions from Research Community Agencies Sensors Startups & Eager Standards Body If we don’t deliver Our impact will be minimized Too many ad-hoc solutions will create a mess 12 April 2019

Something To Worry About? Too many point problems and point solutions Too many application specific solutions Claim that every application is unique There are hundreds of such unique applications Minimal efforts towards plug and play No consensus on Network architecture Software framework --- layers of software and APIs Protocol functions or layers 12 April 2019

Sensor Networking Today Appln EnviroTrack Hood TinyDB Regions FTSP Dir.Diffusion SPIN Transport TTDD Deluge Trickle Drip MMRP Routing TORA Ascent Arrive CGSR MintRoute AODV DSR ARA GSR GPSR GRAD DSDV DBF Scheduling TBRPF Resynch SPAN GAF FPS Topology PC ReORg Yao SMAC PAMAS WooMac BMAC TMAC Link WiseMAC Pico Bluetooth 802.15.4 Phy RadioMetrix eyes CC1000 RFM nordic Thanks to David Culler 12 April 2019

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 other’s work Standardizing protocols and their implementations to enable a programmable, robust, secured, manageable sensor network substrate 12 April 2019

UCB Proposed Sensor Net Arch Applications Compose what they need Tracking Application Sensing Application Multiple Network Layer Protocols Aggregation N --- 1 Data Collection N-1 Robust Dissemination 1-N Pt-Pt Routing 1-1 Neighborhood Sharing 1-k / k-1 Rich Common Link Interface (SP) Multiple Link and Physical Layers IEEE 802.15.4 CC1000 BlueTooth infneon ??? *** Thanks to David Culler 12 April 2019

Towards A Common Architecture Use of UCB architecture A framework for problem/solution definition Reuse components if possible Develop and contribute ideas and software UCB Proposed Sensor Net Arch details Scott Shenker talk http://webs.cs.berkeley.edu/SNA/ Just a suggestion Welcome to propose competing architecture Comprehensive and compelling 12 April 2019

Other Topics to Think About High-rate sensor networks Hari Balakrishnan Still a network of wireless low power sensors Sensor networks with limited mobility Bill Kaiser Security and privacy (same as before) Radha Poovendran New platforms Rajit Manohar 12 April 2019

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 12 April 2019

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 We all know that (1) NSF proposal success rate is very low; (2) the system including NSF and research community is too stressed and overloaded in terms of number of proposals to process, and finally (3) review panels believe that there is a significant fraction of proposals are not a good match for a given program. So it is important that we understand the scope and goals of a program and minimize proposals that are not good match for the program. That will be a big help for all parties. Please please don’t submit proposals that are not good match for the program. And the whole purpose of this informational meeting is to share the goals and scope of the focus area and help the PI community from working on proposals that are unlikely to be successful. Please note that we will have the second round of this solicitation coming out in August/September with the deadline in December. So if you are not ready or don’t have a proposal that is a perfect match, you can wait to submit the proposal in December and ensure that your proposal is well targeted for this program. During this cycle you can be a panelist and that can be a big help to NSF, community and to you as you prepare the proposal for the December deadline. 12 April 2019

Agenda Program context and goals FY04 competition FY05 focus and non-focus Proposals and review process Summary 12 April 2019

Charge to the Review Panel My presentation from Information Meeting Guidance to put emphasis on high impact As opposed to flawless incremental proposals Guidance via email and a presentation 12 April 2019

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 12 April 2019

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 don’t have all “details” worked out It is NOT OK only to fund flawless projects that would “predictably” lead to incremental results 12 April 2019

Proposals 10-15% acceptance rate Note 70% 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 don’t put in the necessary efforts Strong candidates too busy to serve on panel 12 April 2019

Issues with Proposals Overall approach reasonable In many cases Blue Sky Vision Application Class Technology Choices Sub Area Missing Link Proposed Solutions Well Established Methodologies Abstract Problem Formulation Overall approach reasonable In many cases “Abstract Problem => Methodology => Solution” a hammer looking for a nail Link to real sensor network vision is missing 12 April 2019

My Recommendations Slow down Take time and efforts to develop a compelling proposal Talk by Ray Don’t lose sight of the big picture Outline expected results and their potential impact In the context of the big picture Outline how your results can be generalized For other applications Used by others (hardware, software, APIs, theoretical results) 12 April 2019

Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process Focus Area Commitment Informational Meeting Proposal Submission Review Panels Send your best ideas consistent with focus area Save others for appropriate solicitation DON’T submit same proposal to multiple programs NSF committed to providing all help Highlight Results Community Building Execute Research Funding Decisions 12 April 2019

Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process Focus Area Commitment Informational Meeting Proposal Submission Review Panels Suggest strong panelists Volunteer to be a panelist NSF committed to running objective and thorough review process Next solicitation is coming up soon… so you can wait and ensure that your proposal is well targeted. This cylce you can be panelists and that can help as well. Highlight Results Community Building Execute Research Funding Decisions 12 April 2019

Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process Focus Area Commitment Informational Meeting Proposal Submission 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 Highlight Results Community Building Execute Research Funding Decisions 12 April 2019

Need Partnership at Every Step of The Process Focus Area Commitment Informational Meeting Proposal Submission Review Panels NSF funded workshops and PI meetings ACM/IEEE conferences, workshops, journals Highlight Results Community Building Execute Research Funding Decisions 12 April 2019

A Perspective on NSF Program Director Role Programs and Awards Input Advice Research Community Program Director 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 12 April 2019

Summary NSF NOSS focus area emphasis common architecture reusable systems and science To enable plug and play sensor network substrate High impact projects preferred over flawless incremental projects Beware of “a hammer looking for a nail” trap “Abstract problem => Methodology => Solution” 12 April 2019