Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)]

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.

>  On 3/25/24, 5:09 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" 
> cpign...@gmail.com 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 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/

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.

> Fifth, and Lastly — frankly I was debating with myself whether to mention 
> this privately or not, but since you brought it up and opened the topic — 
> another issue. Backdrop: BOF and WG-forming suggestions were sent to 
> /dev/null favoring the IAB Program as the solution.

As mentioned above, please do share more details about your proposal since this 
does not seem right.

Thanks
Suresh

Hi, Rob,

Thanks for the comprehensive email, and for your desire to support the industry 
towards improved energy efficiency!


My first reaction is that this direction seems counter to and in conflict with 
the conclusion and decisions from the IAB Program eimpact “interim” from just a 
month before:

* See Chair Slides 
,
 that codified: " Metrics – Push through the WGs ” (etc. etc.)
* See Minutes 
,
 that captured: " Suresh agreed and mentioned that the reason for having the 
drafts here is that people to get higher level view since all working groups 
need to have a sustainability angle "



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).


There are clear risks like (1) believing that metrics/models are the ultimate 
goal of “eimpact/green’ work, while (as mentioned on eimpact) there’s no 
analysis of the most useful focus area, and (2) forgetting what Suresh wrote 
that many WGs need ‘green’, and this would separate work in a corner, as 
opposed to embedding and integrating it.


Fourth, ‘green-bof’ is very very broad, while I understood your desired scope 
to be narrow. This would eclipse eimpact as the shinny new ball, and would 
potentially confuse people on where to participate (outside the lucky ones that 
attended a side meeting)


Fifth, and Lastly — frankly I was debating with myself whether to mention this 
privately or not, but since you brought it up and opened the topic — another 
issue. Backdrop: BOF and WG-forming suggestions were sent to /dev/null favoring 
the IAB Program as the solution. What follows is a set of factual observations 
and no judgement or intentionality attached to them. But there’s (1) cisco 
proponents and cisco side-meeting organizer despite the eimpact interim, 

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Carlos Pignataro]

Hi, Rob,

Thanks for the comprehensive email, and for your desire to support the industry 
towards improved energy efficiency! 

My first reaction is that this direction seems counter to and in conflict with 
the conclusion and decisions from the IAB Program eimpact “interim” from just a 
month before:
See Chair Slides 
,
 that codified: "Metrics – Push through the WGs” (etc. etc.)
See Minutes 
,
 that captured: "Suresh agreed and mentioned that the reason for having the 
drafts here is that people to get higher level view since all working groups 
need to have a sustainability angle"

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).

There are clear risks like (1) believing that metrics/models are the ultimate 
goal of “eimpact/green’ work, while (as mentioned on eimpact) there’s no 
analysis of the most useful focus area, and (2) forgetting what Suresh wrote 
that many WGs need ‘green’, and this would separate work in a corner, as 
opposed to embedding and integrating it.

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 :-|

Fourth, ‘green-bof’ is very very broad, while I understood your desired scope 
to be narrow. This would eclipse eimpact as the shinny new ball, and would 
potentially confuse people on where to participate (outside the lucky ones that 
attended a side meeting)

Fifth, and Lastly — frankly I was debating with myself whether to mention this 
privately or not, but since you brought it up and opened the topic — another 
issue. Backdrop: BOF and WG-forming suggestions were sent to /dev/null favoring 
the IAB Program as the solution. What follows is a set of factual observations 
and no judgement or intentionality attached to them. But there’s (1) cisco 
proponents and cisco side-meeting organizer despite the eimpact interim, (2) 
with a Cisco-only I-D [1], (3) a Cisco AD meeting with (4) a Cisco IAB Member, 
in the (5) historically least attended meeting, and change direction 180 
degrees… Again, no extrapolation or conclusion, but even from an appearance or 
optics perspectives.

Yes, I continue contributing in the industry and field to this topic, and I 
would cautious you consider a bigger picture to see what approach(es) actually 
help.

I hope and trust these are useful and clear, 

Best,

Carlos.

[1] I did not see a response to this:

> Poweff authors,
>  
> Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in 
> https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared=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 Mar 25, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)  wrote:
> 
> 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 
> 

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson]

Dear IESG and MUD Enthusiasts,

I'm working through your comments, turning them all into issues, but I want
to alert you that the -12/-13 diff includes a significant restructuring of
the document in order to bring the *BCP* nature of the document more clearly
to the front.  I've tried to socialize this change via hallway conversations.
This also means that some of your detailed comments have completely missed
the mark, and I won't be turning those into issues as I go through them.

There is no attempt in this document to standardize any *MUD
controller* aspects or protocols, but IoT vendors need a model against which
to determine what kind of DNS behaviour will work, and what will not.

That was stated in the abstract:

   This document details concerns about how Internet of Things (IoT) devices 
use IP
   addresses and DNS names.
   These concerns become acute as network operators begin deploying RFC 8520
   Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) definitions to control device
   access.

   Also, this document makes recommendations on when and how to use DNS names 
in MUD files.

I won't repeat this in each of the comments that I got, assuming everyone
might read this once.

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13=--html

Looks like this might also contain some xml2rfc version based changes, e.g.:
  as s3.amazonaws.com).  vs as "s3.example.com"


--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-  *I*LIKE*TRAINS*





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)]

Many thanks Rob for the extended notes.
I think it is a really good summary from the outcome of the meeting.

Just to add to on initial discussion of the meeting, due to technical issues 
with opening the Webex, we were left with 45 minutes, from the initial 1 hour 
scheduled.
The people presented in the side meeting provided a short highlevel update on 
the current status from the following drafts, including:


  *   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cx-opsawg-green-metrics/
  *   draft-li-ivy-power
  *   draft-petra-path-energy-api
  *   draft-almprs-sustainability-insights
  *   draft-opsawg-poweff
  *   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cwbgp-ivy-energy-saving-management/


rgds,
Marisol


From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) 
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 15:48
To: Carlos Pignataro , Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) 

Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , e-imp...@ietf.org , 
inventory-y...@ietf.org , Alexander Clemm 
, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) , Ron Bonica 
, Mahesh Jethanandani , Ali 
Rezaki (Nokia) , Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) 
, Jari Arkko 
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
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:

a.  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)

b. Get the initial BOF submission in before 5th May

c.  Refine the BOF proposal based on feedback received, and update by 7th 
June

d. 14th June, we hear back whether the BOF has been 

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Rob Wilton (rwilton)]

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  on behalf of Carlos Pignataro 

Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01
To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) 
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , e-imp...@ietf.org , 
inventory-y...@ietf.org , Alexander Clemm 
, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) , Ron Bonica 
, Mahesh Jethanandani , Ali 
Rezaki (Nokia) , Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) 
, Jari Arkko 
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
+Jari

Hello,

Suresh, Jari,

I'm confused by this bullet point:
•  next 

Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Carlos Pignataro]

+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 ,
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=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)  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
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13.txt

[internet-drafts]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF.

   Title:   Operational Considerations for Use of DNS in IoT Devices
   Authors: Michael Richardson
Wei Pan
   Name:draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13.txt
   Pages:   18
   Dates:   2024-03-24

Abstract:

   This document details concerns about how Internet of Things (IoT)
   devices use IP addresses and DNS names.  These concerns become acute
   as network operators begin deploying RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage
   Description (MUD) definitions to control device access.

   Alos, this document makes recommendations on when and how to use DNS
   names in MUD files.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg