Hi Carlos, > On Apr 10, 2024, at 8:00 AM, Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Suresh, > > Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!
Yep. No worries. > > Please find my follow-up inline below, and in the meantime, one additional > question to you -- context (my emphasis): > • > I seem to have gotten the impression, from your words and IAB program lead > slides, that there was no eimpact-related meeting in Brisbane, Correct. There was no e-impact program meeting in Brisbane. > and the goal was to push drafts through the respective WGs and not through a > WG-forming BOF: Toerless did mention that some of the draft authors were thinking of a side meeting in Brisbane and it was not official. > • https://youtu.be/bfpuL1mkr3U?feature=shared&t=9646 > • > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01 > • "Metrics – Push through the WGs" > • "Benchmarking scenario or methodology standardization – BMWG" > • "Carbon-aware routing – IRTF? TVR?" > • "Do an interim session on backcasting what we need to do" > • > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00 > • "Suresh mentioned that the dispatch function is certainly in > scope and depending on the readiness for engineering the work will end up in > the IETF or the IRTF. " > • But then, you were proponent of a side-meeting > • https://wiki.ietf.org/en/meeting/119/sidemeetings > • "Power Metrics: concrete usage example", "[email protected], > [email protected], [email protected]" > • that said " (4) next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form > a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?" Marisol and Jan organized the side meeting and sent the invites fairly wide to the WGs where the concerned drafts were previously discussed. Since both of them were remote, I am listed as a contact in case there were any local issues in the meeting room. > • Even though the IAB slides on IETF119 say: > • "Short term focus on metrics, benchmarking with dispatch to > relevant IETF WGs" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-iabopen-chair-slides-00 > • "No in-person program meetings at IETF-119 But feel free to join > the program mailing list: [email protected] and [email protected]" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-ietf-sessa-119-internet-architecture-board-iab-report-00 > > > The question: Are you in favor of running e-impact dispatching work to > existing WGs (as you said), or having a new "green" WG (as proponent)? There is no green WG yet. There will hopefully be a green *BOF* in Vancouver and the sponsoring AD along with the IESG will decide whether a WG needs to be formed or if the work needs to be divvied up among existing working groups. I will not be a proponent of this BoF, but I am extremely supportive of the work happening (either in a new working group or in existing working groups). Also, E-impact cannot and will not do standards track work. Any standards track work has to be done in an IETF working group. Hope this is clear. > > Please find follow-up responses inline below: > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:02 PM Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) > <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Carlos, > Since your message was sent to Rob, I will let him respond, but I wanted to > chime on some things you said about the e-impact program. > > Thanks for this -- the salutation did not imply exclusivity. > > On 3/25/24, 5:09 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" [email protected] wrote: > > … > > A second thought is that, while on the surface getting a couple of > > document with ‘green metrics’ is useful and might seem net-positive, > > knee-jerk reacting on tactics misaligned with strategy can further fragment > > the Eimpact work (which already can be characterized as ‘having a hard time > > finding itself’ with work from 2022 and no output). > The e-impact program was created at the end of August 2023, barely seven > months ago (and not 2022 as you mentioned). Announcement here: > https://www.iab.org/announcements/eimpact-program/ > > You are absolutely right, and my mis-writing, with apologies. I meant (and > should have written) the IAB e-impact Workshop, which gave way to the IAB > e-impact Program -- in lieu of forming a WG. No worries. > You seemed to want to run this program as a WG with set outputs. I had > responded to you on list to mention that it was not > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/e-impact/nq7_ToPvRjIm612NwonOqDL-3zI/ > > To be clear, I do not want to run this program -- that is up to the program > leads. > > However, the e-impact program chair (i.e., lead) slides show the acknowledged > need for some management, akin a WG. Quoting from > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01: > > " > ● Updating datatracker with all related drafts on this topic > ● And a wiki page with drafts on this topic, along with status, next steps, > etc. > " > > Quoting relevant part of my mail above: > “IAB programs don’t have milestones like WGs specifically because of the > unclear nature of the space they are exploring. If you recall the initial > meeting with the IAB regarding creation of the program that you participated > in, this was something that was very clearly stated by various members of the > IAB. If the work that needs to be done is clear it will be dispatched to a > WG, an RG or if no relevant space exists to a BoF or proposed RG.” > > A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more e-impactful) > WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB Program :-| > Care sharing more info about this. Who did you ask for a WG and when? I am > surprised because Jari and I have always and repeatedly made clear that the > IAB program will not be doing any standards track work, and will delegate the > work to IETF WGs/BoFs or IRTF RGs/pRGs. If you had created a proposal for a > “more e-impactful” WG please feel free to share that proposed charter here. I > am sure all of us would love to see it. > > I am very surprised to see this response... > > After the Dec 2022 IAB e-impact program, there was the question of Next > Steps, and how to further the work. > The suggestion for a WG (which is a default-gateway answer, so unsurprising > that it was on the table), was captured in the > Chat > log:https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-04/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-04-sessa-webex-chat-log-00 > "Concretely, I wonder whether we should be chartering a WG within the IETF > (perhaps a bit like IOTOPS) with a goal of coordinating this work within the > IETF. " > Chair Slides: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-04/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-04-sessa-09-workshop-next-steps-01.pdf > "• A new working group ”e-interest group”?" > Unfortunately, there seems to be a 403 and no access to the workshop mailing > list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/e-impact-workshop-attendees/ > > Subsequently this was discussed at IETF116: > https://github.com/cpignata/e-impact/blob/main/ietf116/materials/08-ietf116-environmental-impact-outro.pdf > and > https://github.com/cpignata/e-impact/blob/main/ietf116/materials/00-ietf116-environmental-impact-intro-and-purpose.pdf > "Next Hope: BOF? Others?" I was responding to your text where you said "A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more e-impactful) WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB Program :-|”. I was asking *who you asked for a WG, and who shot you down and referred you to the program instead*. As far as I can see, none of the links you provided provide any details regarding this or a proposed charter for this (broader and more e-impactful) WG. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
