Carlos, all, 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? Since those were my words, maybe I should try to explain what they mean. There are a number of us IETF participants, from a rather long list of equipment providers as well as operators, that are working on solving very concrete and current issues with respect to energy management in network equipment. For example, we have noted that most devices can report their energy and/or power usage, but they all do that in different ways and with different precision. We see a real need to standardize this, in order to realize use cases many operators are asking for, somewhat urgently. In the bullet point above, the "WG coordination/status" intended to let everyone chime in with the list of relevant ongoing work they were aware of. As expected, we noted that the work we have in mind is currently spread out across half a dozen IETF working groups, so it's not easy to track or get an overview. The "form a WG Design Team" point meant to discuss the interest in the formation of a design team in an existing WG, such as OPSAWG. Some WGs have very wide charters, and therefore forming design teams around particular areas might be an effective way to progress. The "call for a BOF" point was there to gauge the interest in forming a new WG with a fairly narrow scope to progress some of the work, especially around management aspects of network equipment, such as common YANG modules or collection framework principles. Most people on the side meeting seemed to favor a BOF as the best way to progress this work. This conclusion or initiative is not coming out of IAB or E-impact. In this thread, there was some discussion around energy aware routing (and other protocol updates), and whether that would be a fruitful avenue for IETF work. While I'm not precluding that from the agenda at some point in the future, such topics have been absent from the discussions in any of the existing WGs, as far as I have seen (well, maybe CATS, ALTO and TVR have occasionally almost touched the subject), and certainly also in the design teams/BOFs discussions I have participated in so far. The focus has been on basic standardization of telemetry collection, metering and basic management that pretty much all devices already do, just in vendor specific ways. Best Regards, /jan
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
