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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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