Thank you, Jan! I appreciate the clarity and thorough explanation. How is this problem statement you list below (my paraphrasing for simplicity, please correct as needed): (1) "devices can report their energy and/or power usage" (2) "work belongs / is spread across multiple WGs and it is hard to track")
Different than (1) scope of e-impact, (2) action that the IAB e-impact Program leads took at the interim [1], to "Updating datatracker with all related drafts on this topic. And a wiki page with drafts on this topic, along with status, next steps, etc." Thanks! [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01 On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 5:46 AM Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
