Dear all, I reviewed the changes made over the different revision. Thanks for these careful changes. I approve it from my side as well.
Best regards Jérôme Le 17/09/2025 à 19:24, Alexander Clemm a écrit : > ⚠ Sender external to the University's network. See the security guidelines at > iso.uni.lu. > > Hello Alice, > > thank you very much! I have reviewed the changes; this looks great. Many > thanks for all your support! > > With this, I approve as well. > > Kind regards > --- Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alice Russo <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 8:07 AM > To: Cedric Westphal <[email protected]>; Alexander Clemm <[email protected]> > Cc: Jérôme François <[email protected]>; Laurent Ciavaglia (Nokia) > <[email protected]>; Alexander Clemm <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; Marie-Paule Odini > <[email protected]>; IRSG <[email protected]>; auth48archive > <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9845 <draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-06> 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: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9845-lastrfcdiff.html > > > 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) > > 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: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9845 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > >> On Sep 15, 2025, at 11:58 AM, Alexander Clemm <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> On Sep 15, 2025, at 11:02 AM, Cedric Westphal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. >> The email can be updated to [email protected] but the ieee email is fine. >> That's my only request. >> Best, >> >> C. >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:00 AM Cedric Westphal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I approve as well! >>> >>> C. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:53 AM Laurent Ciavaglia (Nokia) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> 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----- >>>> From: Alice Russo <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Saturday, 6 September, 2025 10:31 PM >>>> Cc: Alexander Clemm <[email protected]>; Alexander Clemm >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Laurent Ciavaglia (Nokia) >>>> <[email protected]>; Jeff Tantsura >>>> <[email protected]>; Marie-Paule Odini <[email protected]>; >>>> IRSG <[email protected]>; Jérôme François <[email protected]>; >>>> auth48archive <[email protected]>; RFC Editor >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9845 <draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-06> >>>> for your review >>>> >>>> [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn >>>> why this is important at >>>> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >>>> >>>> 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): >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 of the document at >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9845 >>>> 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 -- Jérôme FRANCOIS Research Scientist SEDAN - SnT / University of Luxembourg -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
