Thank you very much Alice. This is perfect ! I approve as well, br mp
----------------
Envoyé : mercredi 17 septembre 2025 17:07
Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9845 for your review
Cedric, Alex,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document as requested, with two changes to the text provided for Section 1.1: removed extraneous parenthesis in 'atmosphere)'; changed 'but by also reducing' to 'but also by reducing'.
This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
The revised files are here (please refresh):
This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
Cedric wrote:
> I approve as well!
Your approval has been recorded.
We will wait to hear from Alex again and from Jeff, Marie-Paule, and Jérôme before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar
>
> Dear Alice,
>
> I have returned from my trip. Thank you so much for your support in driving this forward, and to Carlos for jumping in during my absence!
>
> I have the following small comments outstanding:
>
> (1) Could you please record my affiliation as "Sympotech"? (Address, email etc staying the same, just s/Independent/Sympotech/). Thank you!
>
>
> (2) Current:
>
> Therefore, the networking industry has an important role to play in
> meeting sustainability goals and not just by enabling others to
> reduce their reliance on energy but by also reducing its own.
>
> I find the "and" that was added a bit awkward; why not make it a comma which more clearly separates the two aspekts (not just one, but als the other) to result in:
>
> Suggested:
>
> Therefore, the networking industry has an important role to play in
> meeting sustainability goals, not just by enabling others to
> reduce their reliance on energy but by also reducing its own.
>
> (3) Section 6.1. We got rid of "right-placing", replacing it with "correctly place". "Correct" is not the proper term here; you can place functions in ways that are correct but that are at the same time inefficient and suboptimal. I think "correct" needs to be replaced with "smart" here. i.e.:
>
> Current:
> Likewise, there are opportunities to correctly place functionality in
> the network for optimal effectiveness.
>
> Suggested:
>
> Likewise, there are opportunities to smartly place functionality in
> the network for optimal effectiveness.
>
> (4) After the text changes, I think the 2nd paragraph in the motivation now sounds a bit awkward and redundant (not wrong, but can be stylistically improved; also this is at the very beginning of the document where we should perhaps word things not quite as lengthily and should come to the point). I liked the original version better. This will not be worth holding the document up over, but I am wondering if we could still apply some wordsmithing, perhaps:
>
> (If that throws in too much a wrench, please let me know in which case I will withdraw my comment as it is not worth holding the document up over)
>
> Current:
> The science behind greenhouse gas emissions and their relationship
> with climate change is complex. However, there is overwhelming
> scientific consensus pointing toward a clear correlation between
> climate change and a rising amount of greenhouse gases in the
> atmosphere. When we say 'greenhouse gases' or GHG, we are referring
> to gases in the Earth's atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to
> the greenhouse effect. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
> (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (as covered under
> the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement). In terms of emissions from
> human activity, the dominant greenhouse gas is CO2; consequently, it
> often becomes shorthand for "all GHGs". However, other gases are
> also converted into "CO2-equivalents", or CO2e. One greenhouse gas
> of particular concern, but by no means the only one, is carbon
> dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is emitted in the process of burning
> fuels to generate energy that is used, for example, to power
> electrical devices such as networking equipment. Notable here is the
> use of fossil fuels (such as oil, which releases CO2 that had long
> been removed from the earth's atmosphere), as opposed to the use of
> renewable or sustainable fuels that do not "add" to the amount of CO2
> in the atmosphere. There are additional gases associated with
> electricity generation, in particular methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide
> (N2O). Although they exist in smaller quantities, they have an even
> higher Global Warming Potential (GWP).
>
> Suggested:
>
> The science behind greenhouse gas emissions and their relationship
> with climate change is complex. However, there is overwhelming
> scientific consensus pointing toward a clear correlation between
> climate change and a rising amount of greenhouse gases in the
> atmosphere. When we say 'greenhouse gases' or GHG, we are referring
> to gases in the Earth's atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to
> the greenhouse effect. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
> (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (as covered under
> the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement).
> In terms of emissions from
> human activity, the dominant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2).
> CO2 is emitted in the process of burning
> fuels to generate energy that is used, for example, to power
> electrical devices such as networking equipment. Those fuels often include fossil fuels (such as oil), which releases
> CO2 that had long
> been removed from the earth's atmosphere), as opposed to the use of
> renewable or sustainable fuels that do not "add" to the amount of CO2
> in the atmosphere.
> Other GHGs such as CH4 and N2O are associated with electricity generation as well.
> Although they are emitted in smaller quantities, they have an even
> higher Global Warming Potential (GWP). To facilitate accounting for them, they are collectively simply converted into CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
>
> Thanks
> --- Alex
>
> Actually, I looked at the whole draft and not just the substance of
> the text, and please update my affiliation as:
> Cedric Westphal, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
> University of California, Santa Cruz.
> That's my only request.
> Best,
>
> C.
>
>>
>> I approve as well!
>>
>> C.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:53 AM Laurent Ciavaglia (Nokia)
>>>
>>> Dear Alice, dear all,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed the changes made over the AUTH48 process/period, and found them to address very well the identified issues, to improve the text and formulation overall and to not change the iniital meaning of the sentences/paragraphs.
>>> Overall this is a very good work on the document for publication readiness. Thank you Alice, RFC Editor team and co-authors for the improvements.
>>>
>>> Also, I hereby communicate my approval this RFC for publication.
>>>
>>> Thank you, best regards, Laurent
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Sent: Saturday, 6 September, 2025 10:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9845 <draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-06> for your review
>>>
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL
nok.it/ext for additional information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply. The revised files are here (please refresh):
>>>
>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>>>
>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>>>
>>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
>>>
>>> In addition to the changes you requested:
>>> - removed extraneous 'to'.
>>> - lowercased 'fluorinated'.
>>> - replaced angled quotes with straight quotes per RFC style.
>>>
>>> Re:
>>>> After fixing these three nits, please note and write down my Approval
>>>
>>> Your approval has been recorded. We await word from your coauthors and the Document Shepherd before continuing the publication process.
>>>
>>> Alice Russo
>>> RFC Production Center
