From craig@aland.bbn.com Tue Apr 15 13:30:20 2003 From: craig@aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 08:30:20 -0400 Subject: [KP] food for thought re: rapid deployment Message-ID: <200304151230.h3FCUKgw006717@aland.bbn.com> Hi folks: As some of you know, one of the applications of the knowledge plane that people have discussed is the rapid deployment problem -- i.e., bringing up a network in a battle area quickly, with less personnel than required now. I found this note interested because it revealed that the rapid deployment isn't static -- you don't just build a network and let it run -- you build it, and then move it along with the troops (notice the discussion of leapfrogging equipment...) That raises issues of context and whether KP information that a box has learned can be retained as it leapfrogs or is discarded (or something in between, etc....) Craig ************ Subject: Q&A with embedded Wired reporter in Kuwait Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:38:58 -0400 15 MINUTES WITH JOSHUA DAVIS, Embedded in Iraq for Wired by Jonathan Angel Wired Magazine became the first -- and probably only -- technology magazine to have one of its journalists embedded with the military in Iraq. It will soon publish an article by freelance writer Joshua Davis, covering how the Army is using PCs and networking technology in Iraq. We spoke with Davis by phone from Kuwait City. TM: First, were you embedded just for Wired, or are you writing for other titles as well? JD: It is an exclusive assignment for Wired. It started two or three months ago as an idea that I had to follow the Army's 11th Signal Brigade, which is the unit that basically wires the war. I had made contact with them and been talking to them regularly, so that's where it came from. TM: You've found a lot of off-the-shelf technology, put together in a fashion that sometimes seems jerry-rigged. Was that a disappointment? JD: I'm not so much disappointed as surprised. The things that I've been seeing out in the field are off-the-shelf systems. In one sense that's a good way for them to go. Why would they go through the process of developing special systems to meet their needs when that would take five years? Either you wait five years and get something outdated, or you just go to your local corner store and buy a bunch of Cisco routers and put them up. They decided to do it that way. I don't think it was motivated just by affordability, although that's certainly part of it. What's so interesting is seeing how these guys take systems that were never intended to be used in the conditions in which they're being used and make them work. They're meant to be used in clean rooms or server bays in Silicon Valley, where they're cooled and there's no dust. When I'm out there I'm wiping the dust off of my face watching these guys vacuum servers out in the field. You'll see a whole rack of Cisco routers in the middle of the desert in a tent. They have what they call data packages, which is a black box that contains a number of servers. Those servers are encased in foam when they travel. It's been fascinating to see how these things work. Once they get somewhere they'll take them out of the foam and put them into a rack. TM: How are the servers connected into a network over multiple sites? JD: The system leapfrogs itself. They'll go to the furthest edge of the network, which is the edge of the battlefield, and they'll set up things up. As the battlefield moves forward, systems are brought from the rear to become the new point man. Connectivity between sites is via a giant web of wireless connections that stretch to the border. It's not until the signal reaches the border that it is transmitted via satellite to Camp Doha, which is the forward command center, and to Centcom, which is in Qatar. Then it goes to the Department of Defense back in the States. TM: Are you at liberty to discuss the wireless technology? That aspect can't be off-the-shelf civilian stuff. JD: No, it's Army design stuff. They can consult data on the move via Army-developed wireless devices that have an Ethernet plug. They plug in Panasonic Toughbooks, for example, and are on the military's Siprnet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). When the Siprnet is being used in this fashion, out in a battle, they refer to it as the Tactical Internet. In the instance that I saw, the network wasn't super-zippy. It wasn't like my DSL at home, but it does the trick for the way they use it. TM: Would you describe the computer technology as being integral to the military's effort, or are they still really just testing it? JD: I would argue that it has become integral. I'm not sure that they necessarily planned it that way. We could do without cell phones. But could we do the same things? No. And the same holds true for the army. This network gives the Army more choices about how to operate. For example, since two or three weeks before the war started, they started using chat rooms, helping people meet who are specialists in certain aspects -- artillery, for example. As the war started and progressed, they would have conversations in these chat rooms about specific battles. On the fly they adapted these to bring all sorts of new resources to bear. For example, they'd have an analyst back at the DoD looking at the same data they were looking at. It might be an expert on minefields, for instance, who types in "look in Quadrant XY -- there's a minefield." TM: I'm guessing it's going to be a challenge for you writing the article, in that for the readers of Wired, you want to be as specific about technology as you can. Yet you must have seen things you aren't allowed to talk about. JD: I haven't had too much problem with that. I'm traveling with Ed Kashi, a very well-known photographer, and so before Ed and I go into a room, we're warned if there are things we can't take pictures of. From my point of view, that's fine. From Ed's point of view, it's a little more difficult. For me, it doesn't take away from my story not to be able to give secret details such as what frequency they're broadcasting on. I don't care about that at all. That's the type of stuff they're concerned about, so they don't want us taking pictures of wireless transceivers that would give that sort of information. It has been hard to get them to talk about how they're using the technology when they're right in the middle of a battle. They want to tell me and would be happy to tell me, but they can't talk about operational stuff when it's going on. However, I have been able to get them to give me examples from a day or two ago. TM: Are you looking at doing a follow-up story when more can be told openly? JD: What I'm most interested in is writing something about the great almost-story of this war, from a tech point of view. Namely, the deployment of the 4th Infantry Division. This is the Army's "first digitized division," where they went in from the top down and wired them purposefully, as opposed to having each individual unit figure out how to do it themselves. This division was supposed to go through Turkey, and we all know what happened there. Their equipment had to go back through the Suez and come up the Gulf, and was late in being deployed. I was initially going to cover them, but when I realized they weren't going to make it in time, I decided I'd just write about the 11th Signal Brigade. They turned out to get a much more important role in the actual war. TM: The program of embedding journalists in the troops has not been without controversy. As you've been involved with it, have you felt any ethical concerns? JD: Well, there are always ethical concerns with journalism. In this case, I don't see it as being any different than the last story I wrote for Wired, which was about America's fifth-largest tobacco manufacturer, where I was following around these corporate types. People want press, and they hope it's going to be of a certain nature. But that doesn't mean they'll get it. JD: Finally, has your own situation been physically taxing in any way? TM: Well, I've been pretty dirty. I've been wearing the same clothes for five days and not showering or shaving. I do brush my teeth! Jonathan Angel is senior editor for Adweek Magazines' TECHNOLOGY MARKETING. Reach him at jangel@technologymarketing.com . From tgd@cs.orst.edu Tue Apr 15 15:53:57 2003 From: tgd@cs.orst.edu (Thomas G. Dietterich) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:53:57 -0700 Subject: [KP] food for thought re: rapid deployment In-Reply-To: <200304151230.h3FCUKgw006717@aland.bbn.com> (message from Craig Partridge on Tue, 15 Apr 2003 08:30:20 -0400) References: <200304151230.h3FCUKgw006717@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4518-Tue15Apr2003075357-0700-tgd@cs.orst.edu> Does anyone know how much the battlefield network is wired versus wireless? I have been talking to people who do trade shows, and their biggest configuration headache is planning the physical layout, getting the right wire lengths, and doing all the bookkeeping to relate the cable in a display booth to the cable that plugs into the router in the network operations center. This requires detailed maps of the available space, layout of booths, etc., and I doubt the Signal Brigade has such detailed prior information about layout (especially as it must be changing from one location to the next). --Tom -- Thomas G. Dietterich Voice: 541-737-5559 School of Electrical Engineering FAX: 541-737-3014 and Computer Science URL: http://www.cs.orst.edu/~tgd Dearborn Hall 102, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3102 From chrisramming@yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 17:25:47 2003 From: chrisramming@yahoo.com (J. Christopher Ramming) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [KP] food for thought re: rapid deployment In-Reply-To: <200304151230.h3FCUKgw006717@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <20030415162547.89258.qmail@web41511.mail.yahoo.com> Craig, Thanks for posting the article, which adds an interesting twist to the way that learning might be helpful in one context. I ran across something else that's potentially useful. The army maintains a site about "lessons learned" containing, for instance, a post-mortem of the Bosnia experience which has a chapter on "C4ISR" (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). I thought the following paragraph about network interoperability was interesting in the sense that learning was (and possibly still is?) being retained in a semi-automated interoperation "handbook": "Based on field tests and exercises involving U.S., NATO, and allied communications systems, EUCOM J6 developed a EUCOM U.S./NATO/Allied Communications Systems Automated Interoperability Handbook. The handbook is on a laptop computer and is used to document known interoperable configurations that work. It provides a wiring diagram of the configuration, technical details, and other relevant information necessary to guide interface implementation in the field. An operator simply enters the configuration to be set up and if it has been accomplished before and documented, the computer provides the details necessary to implement, test, and operate the requested interface arrangement." Presumably if configuration were a K-App, some or all of the activity specified by the handbook would be automated, as would subsequent testing, optimization, reconfiguration -- as Craig points out, these are the ways in which configuration becomes linked to the function of other potential K-Apps such as "Why?" and "Traffic Engineering". Links: Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL): http://call.army.mil Chapter of a book about Bosnia that focuses on C4ISR (see bottom of page for pointer to very helpful glossary of acronyms): http://call.army.mil/products/spc_prod/ccrp/lessons/bosch11a.htm C4ISR Architecture Framework Document: http://www.c3i.osd.mil/org/cio/i3/AWG_Digital_Library/pdfdocs/fw.pdf --- Craig Partridge wrote: > > Hi folks: > > As some of you know, one of the applications of the knowledge plane that > people have discussed is the rapid deployment problem -- i.e., bringing > up a network in a battle area quickly, with less personnel than required > now. I found this note interested because it revealed that the rapid > deployment isn't static -- you don't just build a network and let it run -- > you build it, and then move it along with the troops (notice the discussion > of leapfrogging equipment...) That raises issues of context and whether > KP information that a box has learned can be retained as it leapfrogs or > is discarded (or something in between, etc....) > > Craig > > ************ > > Subject: Q&A with embedded Wired reporter in Kuwait > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:38:58 -0400 > > 15 MINUTES WITH > > > JOSHUA DAVIS, Embedded in Iraq for Wired > > > by Jonathan Angel > > > Wired Magazine became the first -- and probably only -- technology magazine > to have one of its journalists embedded with the military in Iraq. It will > soon publish an article by freelance writer Joshua Davis, covering how the > Army is using PCs and networking technology in Iraq. We spoke with Davis by > phone from Kuwait City. > TM: First, were you embedded just for Wired, or are you writing for other > titles as well? > > JD: It is an exclusive assignment for Wired. It started two or three months > ago as an idea that I had to follow the Army's 11th Signal Brigade, which is > the unit that basically wires the war. I had made contact with them and been > talking to them regularly, so that's where it came from. > > TM: You've found a lot of off-the-shelf technology, put together in a > fashion that sometimes seems jerry-rigged. Was that a disappointment? > > JD: I'm not so much disappointed as surprised. The things that I've been > seeing out in the field are off-the-shelf systems. In one sense that's a > good way for them to go. Why would they go through the process of developing > special systems to meet their needs when that would take five years? > > Either you wait five years and get something outdated, or you just go to > your local corner store and buy a bunch of Cisco routers and put them up. > They decided to do it that way. I don't think it was motivated just by > affordability, although that's certainly part of it. > > What's so interesting is seeing how these guys take systems that were never > intended to be used in the conditions in which they're being used and make > them work. They're meant to be used in clean rooms or server bays in Silicon > Valley, where they're cooled and there's no dust. When I'm out there I'm > wiping the dust off of my face watching these guys vacuum servers out in the > field. You'll see a whole rack of Cisco routers in the middle of the desert > in a tent. > > They have what they call data packages, which is a black box that contains a > number of servers. Those servers are encased in foam when they travel. It's > been fascinating to see how these things work. Once they get somewhere > they'll take them out of the foam and put them into a rack. > > TM: How are the servers connected into a network over multiple sites? > > JD: The system leapfrogs itself. They'll go to the furthest edge of the > network, which is the edge of the battlefield, and they'll set up things up. > As the battlefield moves forward, systems are brought from the rear to > become the new point man. > > Connectivity between sites is via a giant web of wireless connections that > stretch to the border. It's not until the signal reaches the border that it > is transmitted via satellite to Camp Doha, which is the forward command > center, and to Centcom, which is in Qatar. Then it goes to the Department of > Defense back in the States. > > TM: Are you at liberty to discuss the wireless technology? That aspect can't > be off-the-shelf civilian stuff. > > JD: No, it's Army design stuff. They can consult data on the move via > Army-developed wireless devices that have an Ethernet plug. They plug in > Panasonic Toughbooks, for example, and are on the military's Siprnet (Secret > Internet Protocol Router Network). When the Siprnet is being used in this > fashion, out in a battle, they refer to it as the Tactical Internet. > > In the instance that I saw, the network wasn't super-zippy. It wasn't like > my DSL at home, but it does the trick for the way they use it. > > TM: Would you describe the computer technology as being integral to the > military's effort, or are they still really just testing it? > > JD: I would argue that it has become integral. I'm not sure that they > necessarily planned it that way. We could do without cell phones. But could > we do the same things? No. And the same holds true for the army. > > This network gives the Army more choices about how to operate. For example, > since two or three weeks before the war started, they started using chat > rooms, helping people meet who are specialists in certain aspects -- > artillery, for example. As the war started and progressed, they would have > conversations in these chat rooms about specific battles. > > On the fly they adapted these to bring all sorts of new resources to bear. > For example, they'd have an analyst back at the DoD looking at the same data > they were looking at. It might be an expert on minefields, for instance, who > types in "look in Quadrant XY -- there's a minefield." > > TM: I'm guessing it's going to be a challenge for you writing the article, > in that for the readers of Wired, you want to be as specific about > technology as you can. Yet you must have seen things you aren't allowed to > talk about. > > JD: I haven't had too much problem with that. I'm traveling with Ed Kashi, a > very well-known photographer, and so before Ed and I go into a room, we're > warned if there are things we can't take pictures of. From my point of view, > that's fine. From Ed's point of view, it's a little more difficult. > > For me, it doesn't take away from my story not to be able to give secret > details such as what frequency they're broadcasting on. I don't care about > that at all. That's the type of stuff they're concerned about, so they don't > want us taking pictures of wireless transceivers that would give that sort > of information. > > It has been hard to get them to talk about how they're using the technology > when they're right in the middle of a battle. They want to tell me and would > be happy to tell me, but they can't talk about operational stuff when it's > going on. However, I have been able to get them to give me examples from a > day or two ago. > > TM: Are you looking at doing a follow-up story when more can be told openly? > > JD: What I'm most interested in is writing something about the great > almost-story of this war, from a tech point of view. Namely, the deployment > of the 4th Infantry Division. This is the Army's "first digitized division," > where they went in from the top down and wired them purposefully, as opposed > to having each individual unit figure out how to do it themselves. > > This division was supposed to go through Turkey, and we all know what > happened there. Their equipment had to go back through the Suez and come up > the Gulf, and was late in being deployed. I was initially going to cover > them, but when I realized they weren't going to make it in time, I decided > I'd just write about the 11th Signal Brigade. They turned out to get a much > more important role in the actual war. > > TM: The program of embedding journalists in the troops has not been without > controversy. As you've been involved with it, have you felt any ethical > concerns? > > JD: Well, there are always ethical concerns with journalism. In this case, I > don't see it as being any different than the last story I wrote for Wired, > which was about America's fifth-largest tobacco manufacturer, where I was > following around these corporate types. People want press, and they hope > it's going to be of a certain nature. But that doesn't mean they'll get it. > > JD: Finally, has your own situation been physically taxing in any way? > > TM: Well, I've been pretty dirty. I've been wearing the same clothes for > five days and not showering or shaving. I do brush my teeth! > > > Jonathan Angel is senior editor for Adweek Magazines' TECHNOLOGY MARKETING. > Reach him at jangel@technologymarketing.com . > _______________________________________________ > Know-plane mailing list > Know-plane@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/know-plane From jms@central.cis.upenn.edu Tue Apr 15 18:26:40 2003 From: jms@central.cis.upenn.edu (Jonathan M. Smith) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:26:40 EDT Subject: [KP] food for thought re: rapid deployment In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:53:57 PDT." <4518-Tue15Apr2003075357-0700-tgd@cs.orst.edu> Message-ID: <200304151726.h3FHQeUp002458@central.cis.upenn.edu> I'd be interested if I am wrong, but it's almost certainly wired (maybe even fibered?) in camps and wireless intervehicular/infantry/mobile. -JMS > Does anyone know how much the battlefield network is wired versus > wireless? I have been talking to people who do trade shows, and their > biggest configuration headache is planning the physical layout, getting > the right wire lengths, and doing all the bookkeeping to relate the > cable in a display booth to the cable that plugs into the router in the > network operations center. This requires detailed maps of the available > space, layout of booths, etc., and I doubt the Signal Brigade has such > detailed prior information about layout (especially as it must be > changing from one location to the next). > > --Tom > > -- > Thomas G. Dietterich Voice: 541-737-5559 > School of Electrical Engineering FAX: 541-737-3014 > and Computer Science URL: http://www.cs.orst.edu/~tgd > Dearborn Hall 102, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3102 > > _______________________________________________ > Know-plane mailing list > Know-plane@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/know-plane From van.parunak@altarum.org Tue Apr 15 20:03:19 2003 From: van.parunak@altarum.org (Van Parunak) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:03:19 -0400 Subject: [KP-seed] Re: [KP] food for thought re: rapid deployment In-Reply-To: <4518-Tue15Apr2003075357-0700-tgd@cs.orst.edu> References: <200304151230.h3FCUKgw006717@aland.bbn.com> <200304151230.h3FCUKgw006717@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030415150216.02968378@204.106.28.96> I passed this question on to one of our retired Colonels here. His response:
Van...there is no cookie cutter solution.  Tactical Operations Centers
(TOCs) are as varied as the commanders that they support.  Also, they
increase in scope and complexity as the level of command increases.  In
general, everything within the TOC is LAN, much with fiber optic.  Lengths
vary from several meters at the battalion level to 50-100 meters at
division level.  These days most Corps TOCs are set inside buildings.
Outside the TOC (TOC to TOC or TOC to units) is wireless.
 At 07:53 AM 4/15/2003 -0700, Thomas G. Dietterich wrote:
Does anyone know how much the battlefield network is wired versus
wireless?  I have been talking to people who do trade shows, and their
biggest configuration headache is planning the physical layout, getting
the right wire lengths, and doing all the bookkeeping to relate the
cable in a display booth to the cable that plugs into the router in the
network operations center.  This requires detailed maps of the available
space, layout of booths, etc., and I doubt the Signal Brigade has such
detailed prior information about layout (especially as it must be
changing from one location to the next).

--Tom

--
Thomas G. Dietterich              Voice: 541-737-5559
School of Electrical Engineering  FAX:   541-737-3014
  and Computer Science            URL:   http://www.cs.orst.edu/~tgd
Dearborn Hall 102, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3102    

_______________________________________________
Know-plane mailing list
Know-plane@mailman.isi.edu
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/know-plane
_______________________________________________
Kp-seed mailing list
Kp-seed@mailman.isi.edu
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/kp-seed

Dr. H. Van Dyke Parunak, Chief Scientist, Altarum Institute
van.parunak@altarum.org  www.erim.org/~vparunak
v: +1 734 302 4684       f: +1 734 302 4991
Altarum
3520 Green Court, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1570 From arens@ISI.EDU Wed Apr 16 06:22:37 2003 From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:22:37 -0700 Subject: [KP] Re: ARDA's New BAA called P2INGS In-Reply-To: <7B7C37072FBDFC4FAE6F6B86025A47E3649373@bigmail.ncsc.mil> Message-ID: <6FC0A512-6FCB-11D7-9B79-000A956D514C@isi.edu> On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 04:38 AM, Davis, John C wrote: > http://www.eps.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/AFRLRRS/Reference-Number-BAA-03-10- > IFKA/listing.html > > ARDA's latest BAA called P2INGS. Please pass this information to > anyone you > think will be interested. Just in case you haven't seen this. -- Yigal From arens@ISI.EDU Mon Apr 28 00:30:03 2003 From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:30:03 -0700 Subject: [KP] Ram Nevatia's upcoming talk Message-ID: <2C09195C-7908-11D7-A7D8-003065C7DDC0@isi.edu> I mentioned Ram's work on identifying events from sensory observations at a recent KP meeting. I was asked to let people know when his talk will be. It will take place May 16, 10:30am-12noon, probably in the 11th floor large conference room, but that is yet TBD. Yigal Begin forwarded message: > From: ram nevatia > Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:24:59 PM America/Los_Angeles > To: Jose-Luis Ambite > Cc: ambite@ISI.EDU, arens@ISI.EDU, erikabn@ISI.EDU > Subject: Re: USC/ISI AI Seminar dates > >> Please send us the talk title, abstract, and a short bio so that we >> can announce the seminar. >> > Following are what you asked for; let me know if you need more details. > Ram. > > > Title: Event Recognition in Video Streams > > Abstract: > > It is important to recognize events of interest in dynamic > environments for > many applications. Video cameras provide a common sensor to view common > physical environments. This talk will describe recent work at the > computer vision laboratory of USC on automatic recognition of events > from > video streams. The task is made complicated by the ambiguities inherent > in imaging sensors and by the allowed variations, in duration and in > style, for the same event. > > The methods we have deveoped are based on stochastic finite state > automata, similar to the hidden Markov model machines used in > speech recognition, and based on rigorous Bayesian reasoning. > We have also developed an early version of > an "event representation language" to simplify the task of > specifying desired events for recogntion. This talk will focus > on the event recognition methods and touch on the image analysis > aspects only lightly. The methods used for higher-level, complex > event recognition are relatively independent of sensor modality > and should apply to outputs of inferences from a variety of > sensors as well. > > Bio: > > R. Nevatia recived his Ph.D. from Stanford University. He has been on > USC faculty since 1975 and currently is Professor of Computer Science > and Electrical Engineering. > He is also director of the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent > Systems on campus. > He teaches courses in computer vision and in artificial intelligence. > He has worked on many aspects of computer vision including early > processing, object description and recognition and more recently > on event recognition. >