Hi Carlos,
During IETF 119, I had a couple of discussions with Suresh and Mahesh regarding
how we actual get some of the short term “green” related work happening in IETF
to get critical mass and cross review and get published in the short term.
This seemed to somewhat culminate during the Power Metrics side meeting where
it is clear that:
* Various folks, representing different organizations, have various drafts
related to Green networking.
* Currently these drafts are spread out to different working groups, have
various amounts of overlap, and it is unclear that they currently have a good
homes and sufficient traction in IETF to progress effectively.
* There was support in the meeting to target a WG forming BOF for IETF 120
to create a new WG with a limited targeted charter.
Hence the proposal from Suresh and I was to try and help coordinate for a WG
forming BOF for IETF 120 scoped specifically to work on items that are
understood and achievable in the short term. E.g., roughly, I currently think
of this work scope as being: e.g., energy related terminology and definitions
(that should try and leverage and reference existing definitions from existing
published sources), reporting energy and sustainability at the device and
network layer via operational YANG models, and to facilitate configuration or
YANG RPCs to influence and optimise power usage on network devices. Longer
term energy efficiency and Green networking goals are intended to be out of
scope for the proposed WG’s initial charter, and should continue to be
discussed as part of the E-Impact IAB program. The exact scope of the charter
would be worked out between the interested parties in the coming weeks.
I’m happy to try and help this work gain traction within the IETF. I
appreciate that several of the proponents for this work are also from Cisco,
but I have no vested interest other than trying to help the industry take small
steps that may help improve energy efficiency in networks (e.g., reporting
power usage, and as Tony suggests by selectively powering off ports or
linecards) to try and help mitigate some of the impacts of the Internet on
climate change.
To that end the proposed next steps from that side meeting were:
1. For me to request the creation of new open “green-bof” mailing list from
Mahesh (hopefully should be done over the next few days).
2. I asked for, and received, permission to subscribe those who attended the
side meeting, but once created, I also intended to circulate the existence of
the mailing list to e-impact, and other places where related discussions have
been taking place, so that others can join.
3. To create a github location where we can reference drafts and collecting
work on a BOF proposal and draft charter for the WG (which as I stated above,
should be narrowly scoped to only the work that is well understood and
achievable in the short term). If I can get this under the IETF github space,
great, otherwise I can host a personal github. I’m already checking with
Mahesh on the feasibility of the github location being IETF hosted.
4. Once the mailing list is up and running, the next step is to arrange a
few virtual meetings to try and gain consensus on the proposed initial scope of
the WG, and to start reviewing and pulling together the BOF proposal, and
charter text.
5. To submit a BOF request for IETF 120. The key dates being:
* Warn the IESG and Secretariat that we are hoping for a BOF by 22nd
April (note Mahesh is already aware and this has already been informally
flagged to the IESG)
* Get the initial BOF submission in before 5th May
* Refine the BOF proposal based on feedback received, and update by 7th
June
* 14th June, we hear back whether the BOF has been approved for IETF 120
* Continue prepping slides, etc, for the BOF, running up to early July
6. In my experience, despite it being 4 months between IETF meetings, the
time invariably disappears quickly, so I think that we need to frontload the
BOF preparation effort to achieve consensus at IETF 120 for creating a working
group.
Anyone else in the side meeting, please feel free to add anything that I have
missed, or correct me, if I have misrepresented anything.
Carlos, hopefully you are also interested in participating in these efforts.
If you have any feedback on the planned approach I would be glad to hear it.
Regards,
Rob
From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Carlos Pignataro
<[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01
To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, Alexander Clemm
<[email protected]>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]>, Ron Bonica
<[email protected]>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>, Ali
Rezaki (Nokia) <[email protected]>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)
<[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
+Jari
Hello,
Suresh, Jari,
I'm confused by this bullet point:
• next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team,
call for a BOF?
Could you please clarify?
I understood there's no WG (and hence no WG coordination nor status), in favor
of the IAB Program. There cannot be a WG Design Team without a WG. I cannot
find "design team" or 'BOF" (WG forming or not?) in the minutes of eimpact
meetings<https://datatracker.ietf.org/program/eimpact/meetings/>, maybe I
missed it.
Is this an effort parallel to eimpact or a shadow meeting?
Poweff authors,
Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in
https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared&t=3534? Verbatim youtube transcript:
Many of the um products uh that we have uh mainly in Cisco right we are still
looking into multivendor and this will be really good for um the participants
to um provide feedback how this H um standardization of the data model might
impact in your network equipment but um
Thanks!
Carlos.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:30 PM Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all,
We have booked a side meeting in Brisbone, IETF #119
Thursday 9:00 am local time.
Headline: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
Please see the agenda that we are proposing:
• Overview of ongoing sustainability work in IETF (everyone
contributes)
• Brief presentation of sustainability insights/poweff updates,
incl. look at a more concrete example
• Any other short updates?
• next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team,
call for a BOF?
As we would like to leave time to discuss and review **next steps**, for the
overview we propose not more than 20 min.
As authors from specific drafts, please let me know which draft(s) you would
like to review, we would like to make sure that we could fit them into the 20
min
Safe travels, and have a nice weekend
Marisol Palmero, on behalf of the authors of sustainability insights& poweff
drafts
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
