Hi, Alice, I sincerely appreciate the outstanding quality of your work on this.
Here’s my responses — taking the lead as Alex is on vacation. 1. Correct. We want the Telefonica-2020 reference removed. 2. Let’s go with “A”. It is closer to the original, and also it is more descriptive using “effectiveness”. 3. Let’s leave it, please. Thank you for asking and for your patience with this :-) I prefer not to shorten affiliation names, and use "NC State University & Blue Fern Consulting" I can see it is long, but a quick search shows similar examples: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8452.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9324.txt And now, doing another final pass, I noticed a couple of typos/grammos: Section 1.2: “…improving the efficiency with with networks utilize power…” —> “…improving the efficiency with which networks utilize power…” Section 6.1: “…for exmaple, virtualized network functions…” —> “…for example, virtualized network functions…” Section 8: “…the constallation and any networking within it are powered by solar energy…” —> “…the constellation and any networking within it are powered by solar energy…” And with that, I believe we had responded to all the queries, and all the issues raised had been addressed. After fixing these three nits, please note and write down my Approval of the document at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9845 Thanks! Carlos. > On Sep 3, 2025, at 12:57 PM, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Carlos, Alex, > > Thank you for your replies; we have updated the document accordingly (URLs > below). A few follow-ups: > > 1) Section 1.1: The new text provided does not cite [Telefonica2020], so this > reference has been removed. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. > > 2) Section 6.1 re: >> [CMP] "there are opportunities to identify the most suitable location for >> functionality in the network” is the best one yet. >> [CMP] But we can discuss and re-confirm. > > > Do you prefer A or B or otherwise? > > A) Current: > Likewise, there are opportunities to correctly place functionality in > the network for optimal effectiveness. > > B) Perhaps: > Likewise, there are opportunities to identify the most suitable location > for functionality in the network. > > > 3) Header: re: >> [CMP] Top-page: “NC State University & Blue Fern Consulting” or “NC State >> University / Blue Fern Consulting" >> [CMP] Authos’ Addresses: “North Carolina State University & Blue Fern >> Consulting” > > The abbreviated organization appears long for the text file, i.e., it > horizontally overlaps with the left side. Do you prefer to leave it or change > to "NCSU & Blue Fern Consulting" or otherwise? > > [best viewed with fixed-width font] > > Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) A. Clemm, Ed. > Request for Comments: 9845 Independent > Category: Informational C. Pignataro, Ed. > ISSN: 2070-1721 NC State University & Blue Fern Consulting > C. Westphal > [...] > > > The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845-lastrfcdiff.html > > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors > before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9845 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > >> On Aug 28, 2025, at 8:12 PM, Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, Sandy, >> >> Please find the final outcome of the text for Issue #35: >> >> OLD: >> For example, in its annual report, Telefónica reports that in 2021, its >> network’s energy consumption per petabyte (PB) of data amounted to 54 >> megawatt-hours (MWh) [Telefonica2021]. This rate has been dramatically >> decreasing (by a factor of seven over six years), although gains in >> efficiency are being offset by simultaneous growth in data volume. The same >> report states that an important corporate goal is continuing on that >> trajectory and aggressively reducing overall carbon emissions further. >> >> NEW: >> For example, in its annual report, Telefónica states that in 2024, its >> network’s energy consumption per petabyte (PB) of data amounted to 38 >> megawatt-hours (MWh) [Telefonica2024]. This represents an improvement of >> about 90% since the 2015 base year (400 MWh/PB), achieved through steady >> year-on-year efficiency gains, although these are still partly offset by >> simultaneous growth in data volume. The same report highlights an important >> corporate goal: continuing on this trajectory and further reducing overall >> greenhouse gas emissions. >> >> OLD: >> [Telefonica2021] >> Telefonica, "Telefonica Consolidated Annual Report 2021", >> 2021. >> >> NEW: >> [Telefonica2024] >> Telefonica, "Telefonica Consolidated Annual Report 2024", >> >> https://www.telefonica.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2025/02/Consolidated-Annual-Accounts-2024.pdf, >> 2024. >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carlos. >> >>> On Aug 28, 2025, at 10:42 PM, Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> 35) <!-- [rfced] We found the following URL for [Telefonica2021]; >>>>> would you like to add it or a different URL to this reference? >>>>> >>>>> https://www.telefonica.com/en/shareholders-investors/financial-reports/historical-archive-annual-reports/2021/ >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> [Telefonica2021] >>>>> Telefonica, "Telefonica Consolidated Annual Report 2021", >>>>> 2021. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> <ALEX> >>>>> Actual, we would like to point to the most recent report, which is 2024: >>>>> https://www.telefonica.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2025/03/consolidated-management-report.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <Carlos>Actually, I disagree here. It is important to point to an earlier >>>>> / the FIRST time the Telefónica Annual Report included this. We can >>>>> *also* include 2024, but can we please revert back to including 2021 as >>>>> well? Thanks!!! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The number we are referencing from the report (which can be found now on >>>>> page 99) has changed. As a result, the following should be changed in >>>>> the text: >>>>> Original: >>>>> For example, in its annual report, Telefónica reports that in 2021, its >>>>> network's energy consumption per PB of data amounted to 54MWh >>>>> [Telefonica2021]. >>>>> >>>>> New: >>>>> For example, in its annual report, Telefónica reports that in 2024, its >>>>> network's energy consumption per PB of data amounted to 38 MWh >>>>> [Telefonica2021]. >>>>> >>>>> </ALEX> >>>> >>>> [rfced] Please let us know the outcome of this discussion. >>>> >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
