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

2. 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

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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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
Phy
RadioMetrix
eyes
CC1000
RFM
nordic
Thanks to David Culler
12 April 2019

17. 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

18. 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
CC1000
BlueTooth
infneon
???
***
Thanks to David Culler
12 April 2019

19. 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
Just a suggestion
Welcome to propose competing architecture
Comprehensive and compelling
12 April 2019

20. 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

21. 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
12 April 2019

22. 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

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

24. 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 and a presentation
12 April 2019

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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