Hi Ron,
Under the Terminology section, there's a reference to
draft-many-teas-power-steering. I checked that draft as well, and it
doesn't reference the GREEN work either.
- Under Terminology, I'd suggest reviewing and referencing, possibly as
an extension: draft-ietf-green-terminology.
I'd also review the GREEN use cases to make sure your use case(s) are
covered under: draft-ietf-green-use-cases. And noted in the Introduction
section, similar to your reference to [I-D.many-teas-power-steering]
In the Operational section, I'd include the requirements for the GREEN
framework, or any other framework that might support the use case, ... also
including the device-specific details, that to my understanding should be
align with the GREEN YANG data model:
- draft-ietf-green-framework —> see the relationship defined in Section
4.3: "A Functional Dependency Relationship is a relationship where one
Energy Object requires another Energy Object to be in an operational state
for its own correct functioning..."
- draft-ietf-green-power-and-energy-yang, where the relationship YANG
data model has been included.
I'd reference these in Section 2 (Terminology) and/or Section 3, where
relevant terms/dependencies are introduced.
Point 3 is covered with your suggestion. Please keep in mind that under the
GREEN YANG data model
Just for you to note:
GREEN WG is considering *accuracy* and units for power in watts.
leaf data-source-accuracy {
type identityref {
base data-source-accuracy;
}
default accuracy-like-parent;
description
"The accuracy of the power data source. Indicates whether
the data source is a direct measurement, an estimate, or
unavailable and also the accuracy level of the data source.
By default, the accuracy is inherited from the parent energy
object, facilitating hierarchical accuracy definitions
without the need to specify accuracy at every level.
This metadata is crucial for network management
applications to assess the reliability and accuracy of the
power data.";
}
hth,
Marisol
On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 3:58 PM Bonica, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Marisol,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> Regarding points 1 and 2, if you could send me the appropriate
references, I would be glad to add them. Also, it would be helpful if you
could suggest where in the document these references should be made.
>
> Regarding point 3, would your concern be addressed if we added a
Management Considerations Section that said:
>
> Data items described in this document SHOULD be consistent with
device-reported power data available via the GREEN YANG model where such
data is available, to establish a baseline for interoperability between the
IGP-distributed value and the management-plane value.
>
>
> Maybe this would be the place to reference the Green documents?
>
> Ron
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marisol <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 6:28 AM
> To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email protected]>
> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>; Acee
Lindem <[email protected]>; TEAS WG Chairs <[email protected]>; Tony
Li <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; “
[email protected]” <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg <[email protected]>;
lsr-chairs <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; Getting Ready for
Energy-Efficient Networking Discussion List <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
>
>
> As this draft, draft-many-lsr-power-group, is related to what we are
working on the GREEN WG, I would like to highlight some points that will
require some kind of discussion/references, to my understanding, before the
work gets adopted:
>
>
> 1. Informative cross-reference to GREEN WG related work:
>
> The draft currently carries no reference to any GREEN WG document. The
Power Group concept, Sleep Status, and PSP metric all directly relate to
the energy management model defined in the GREEN framework
(draft-ietf-green-framework) and GREEN YANG data model
(draft-ietf-green-power-and-energy-yang). We request to address: that
Power Group membership and PSP values are intended to be consistent with
what a device reports via the GREEN YANG model at the management plane.
>
> 2. Power Group parent-child dependency maps to the GREEN YANG Functional
Enablement Relationship
>
> draft-many-lsr-power-group defines: "One Power Group is the child of
another if any one of the child components depends upon any one of the
parent components." This is precisely the Functional Enablement
Relationship that GREEN WG has extended in its YANG model via the
'enabled-by' and 'enabling' identity pair. The draft should acknowledge
this mapping explicitly, so that implementations can correlate
IS-IS-advertised Power Group hierarchy with the management-plane
relationship model in GREEN YANG without ambiguity.
>
> 3. PSP (Power Savings Potential) is a gap in the GREEN YANG model
>
> The PSP field (power saveable in milliwatts if a Power Group goes to
sleep) is a prospective metric with no equivalent in the current GREEN YANG
data model, which defines only actual and historical power values. Before
the draft is adopted, it should be considered a prospective power metric
leaf in a future revision of the YANG model. We request that the LSR
document note that PSP values SHOULD be consistent with device-reported
power data available via the GREEN YANG model where such data is available,
to establish a baseline for interoperability between the IGP-distributed
value and the management-plane value. It will be good to address this
requirement from the LSR authors.
>
> From my point of view, the three points above are requests for alignment
before the work is adopted.
>
>
> The guidance that we are getting/adopting by the GREEN WG is to first
focus and prioritize the device level energy capabilities, monitoring and
settings, to later address other use cases, including collector part,
routing capabilities, etc.
>
> Note: adding the GREEN WG to the thread
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Marisol
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 1:13 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Gunter,
>
> Since I am a co-author of these drafts, I've recused myself from
initiating the adoption process. Oscar is currently on vacation (as are
many folks in Europe) and my understanding is that he will initiate the
process once he returns toward the end of this month.
>
> Regards,
> Pavan
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:41 AM Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +teas-chairs
>
> Hi Italo, Carlos & Vishnupavan,
>
> Can you help understand lsr-chairs and authors of
draft-many-lsr-power-group when the TEAS WG plans to start an adoption call
for the companion draft -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-teas-power-steering/
>
> Many thanks,
> G/
>
> ________________________________
> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:34 PM
> To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>
> Cc: Tony Li <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>;
"“[email protected]”" <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg <[email protected]>;
lsr-chairs <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Speaking as WG Co-chair:
>
> Gunter - given the amount of discussion the draft had generated, I don't
see that there has been any undo delay in the adoption call.
>
> One thing you could follow up on is when the TEAS WG plans to start an
adoption call for the companion draft -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-teas-power-steering/
>
> I haven't seen it yet (although I get lots of Email).
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> > On Aug 17, 2026, at 4:41 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <
[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tony, All,
> >
> > Message received.
> > I observed that Chris requested a WG adoption call for
draft-many-lsr-power-group few hours ago.
> >
> > I believe we should, as Chris proposed, give the normal route a chance.
If that doesn’t work, we can unpack the situation together and converge on
the next steps.
> >
> > G/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 8:12 PM
> > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; "“[email protected]”" <
[email protected]>
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]>;
lsr <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > We still seem stuck. Could I get some AD help, please?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > It's now two weeks after the meeting. Could the chairs please proceed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 2:30 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Can we please pause this discussion until after the meeting? I don’t
think anything helpful is going on here that benefits the document or the
WG.
> >
> > No one is raising bars on whims and no one is end running.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2026, at 22:47, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > Tony –
> >
> > I think Chris and I have expressed the same point.
> > I also think you seem to want to “pick a fight” – and I am not
interested in that.
> >
> > I will call your attention to the following from RFC 7120. Although RFC
7120 is not directly applicable in this case, it is related and the concern
expressed there seems very relevant to this case.
> >
> > From https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7120.html#section-5
> >
> > “There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document
> >
> > could be used as an end-run on the IETF process to achieve code point
> > allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a
> > WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for a
> > protocol extension for a particular company or for another Standards
> > Development Organization even though it might be predicted that an
> > IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is
> > documented.”
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> > From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:05 PM
> > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <
[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
> >
> > Chris, Les,
> >
> > I wrote that code points "do not require adoption". That is accurate.
A 'SHOULD' is not a 'MUST'. You don't get to change it into one. What I
wrote originally was correct.
> >
> > I respect the 'SHOULD' and the work the experts do, but the fact of the
matter is that we have code, and it is going to ship regardless of
adoption. At this point, I cannot stop it.
> >
> > So, this is really up to you. You can allocate, or we can squat.
Waiting is out of the question. Your choice?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:56 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Expert hat on: I do not believe Les is raising the bar. We (reg
experts) have followed the SHOULD advice rather consistently. We have
always pushed for WG adoption first. It’s why I mentioned the order,
adoption and then allocate, during the presentation. Yes, SHOULD is not
MUST, but it’s also not MAY. :)
> >
> > I think it’s worth giving the normal route a chance here before we look
to the exceptional one.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2026, at 20:12, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:Les,
> >
> > What I wrote is correct. Please read what you quoted. That's a
SHOULD, not a MUST.
> >
> > You don't get to raise the bar on a whim.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 6:36 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at
cisco.com<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Tony –
> >
> > I don’t want to start an argument – just want to set the record
straight.
> >
> >
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fisis-tlv-codepoints%2Fisis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml&data=05%7C02%7Cgunter.van_de_velde%40nokia.com%7Cf06d61d690364315423908defc968418%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C639225920576642649%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O8wTJ%2FkbPXwKL%2FUzwoNmoHT4wYC8qDL5iagbj8fCwB0%3D&reserved=0
states:
> >
> > “Note
> > For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert
> > Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated
> > experts can be found in [RFC7370].”
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 states:
> >
> > “2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
> > from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
> > documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
> > documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.”
> >
> > So what you say below is not correct.
> >
> > Les
> >
> > From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM
> > To: lsr-chairs <[email protected]>
> > Cc: lsr <[email protected]>
> > Subject: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to formally request that we start an adoption poll of
draft-many-lsr-power-group.
> >
> > I would also like to formally request code point assignment for this
document. The relevant code points are all under "Expert Review" and do
not require formal adoption before code point allocation. We would greatly
prefer not to squat on code point values if we do not have to.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
