Jari, Rob, Jari already made this point in a visual, clear way, please see *Slide 2* of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-01/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-01-sessa-02-big-picture-01.pdf
There have been a few meta-topics in various e-impact discussions: 1. Metrics / Data Models (electrical-power focused?) -- which seems to be the key focus of 'green-bof' 2. Routing optimizations -- specifically TE and TVR, carbon-aware routing, Duty cycling 3. Operations -- toolset to glean e-impact visibility 4. Others -- dataplane, multicast. Yet, there was still recent discussion as to whether the biggest impact can be achieved in the use-phase or in manufacturing... For a very concrete, narrowly-scoped 'get this YANG power thing' effort, why not a DT -> Opsawg draft? Thanks, Carlos. On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 8:08 PM Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rob, > > One of the challenges we appear to be having is that the working groups > that should potentially care about some of the metrics work for instance > are busy. I find that somewhat unfortunate, but it may be what it is. The > IAB program is not a place for us to standardize protocols or data models, > though of course it can be a place to discuss what work is happening in the > IETF or is not but should. So if the WGs like OPSAWG or IVY have little > bandwidth for the the work that needs to happen, then new IETF activities > should be created for it. > > I have two comments to consider though: > > 1. Sometimes if the work is clear enough but no room in an existing > working group, WGs can also created directly. Not sure if this is feasible > in this case. > > 2. I’d be happy to contribute to a BoF personally. But it is *very* > important that it be scoped extremely tightly. This is a topic where we can > easily attract any level of discussion, and BoF proposals with clear, > concrete goals (”add this YANG thing”) succeed, whereas proposals with > vague or unclear or debated scopes may not proceed as fast or at all. > > Jari > > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> kirjoitti 26.3.2024 kello 0.48: > > 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 Power > Metrics side meeting where it is clear that: > > - Various folks, representing different organizations, have various > drafts related to Green networking. > - Currently these drafts are spread out to different working groups, > have various amounts of overlap, and it is unclear that they currently have > a good homes and sufficient traction in IETF to progress effectively. > - There was support in the meeting to target a WG forming BOF for IETF > 120 to create a new WG with a limited targeted charter. > > > Hence the proposal from Suresh and I was to try and help coordinate for a > WG forming BOF for IETF 120 scoped specifically to work on items that are > understood and achievable in the short term. E.g., roughly, I currently > think of this work scope as being: e.g., energy related terminology and > definitions (that should try and leverage and reference existing > definitions from existing published sources), reporting energy and > sustainability at the device and network layer via operational YANG models, > and to facilitate configuration or YANG RPCs to influence and optimise > power usage on network devices. Longer term energy efficiency and Green > networking goals are intended to be out of scope for the proposed WG’s > initial charter, and should continue to be discussed as part of the > E-Impact IAB program. The exact scope of the charter would be worked out > between the interested parties in the coming weeks. > > I’m happy to try and help this work gain traction within the IETF. I > appreciate that several of the proponents for this work are also from > Cisco, but I have no vested interest other than trying to help the industry > take small steps that may help improve energy efficiency in networks (e.g., > reporting power usage, and as Tony suggests by selectively powering off > ports or linecards) to try and help mitigate some of the impacts of the > Internet on climate change. > > To that end the proposed next steps from that side meeting were: > > > 1. For me to request the creation of new open “green-bof” mailing list > from Mahesh (hopefully should be done over the next few days). > 2. I asked for, and received, permission to subscribe those who > attended the side meeting, but once created, I also intended to circulate > the existence of the mailing list to e-impact, and other places where > related discussions have been taking place, so that others can join. > 3. To create a github location where we can reference drafts and > collecting work on a BOF proposal and draft charter for the WG (which as I > stated above, should be narrowly scoped to only the work that is well > understood and achievable in the short term). If I can get this under the > IETF github space, great, otherwise I can host a personal github. I’m > already checking with Mahesh on the feasibility of the github location > being IETF hosted. > 4. Once the mailing list is up and running, the next step is to > arrange a few virtual meetings to try and gain consensus on the proposed > initial scope of the WG, and to start reviewing and pulling together the > BOF proposal, and charter text. > 5. To submit a BOF request for IETF 120. The key dates being: > 1. Warn the IESG and Secretariat that we are hoping for a BOF by 22 > nd April (note Mahesh is already aware and this has already been > informally flagged to the IESG) > 2. Get the initial BOF submission in before 5th May > 3. Refine the BOF proposal based on feedback received, and update > by 7th June > 4. 14th June, we hear back whether the BOF has been approved for > IETF 120 > 5. Continue prepping slides, etc, for the BOF, running up to early > July > 6. In my experience, despite it being 4 months between IETF meetings, > the time invariably disappears quickly, so I think that we need to > frontload the BOF preparation effort to achieve consensus at IETF 120 for > creating a working group. > > > Anyone else in the side meeting, please feel free to add anything that I > have missed, or correct me, if I have misrepresented anything. > > Carlos, hopefully you are also interested in participating in these > efforts. If you have any feedback on the planned approach I would be glad > to hear it. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > *From: *OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Carlos Pignataro < > cpign...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01 > *To: *Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc: *opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>, e-imp...@ietf.org < > e-imp...@ietf.org>, inventory-y...@ietf.org <inventory-y...@ietf.org>, > Alexander Clemm <a...@clemm.org>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) < > na...@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani < > mjethanand...@gmail.com>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rez...@nokia.com>, > Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <sure...@cisco.com>, Jari Arkko < > jari.ar...@gmail.com> > *Subject: *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 cannot be a WG Design Team without a WG. I > cannot find "design team" or 'BOF" (WG forming or not?) in the minutes of > eimpact meetings <https://datatracker.ietf.org/program/eimpact/meetings/>, > maybe I missed it. > > Is this an effort parallel to eimpact or a shadow meeting? > > *Poweff authors,* > > Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in > https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared&t=3534? Verbatim youtube > transcript: > > *Many of the um products uh that we have uh mainly in **Cisco** right we > are still looking into multivendor and this will be really good for um the > participants to um provide feedback how this H um standardization of the > data model might impact in your network equipment but um* > > > Thanks! > > Carlos. > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:30 PM Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) > <mpalmero=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > We have booked a side meeting in Brisbone, IETF #119 > *Thursday 9:00 am local time*. > *Headline*: Power Metrics: concrete usage example > > > Please see the *agenda* that we are proposing: > > • Overview of ongoing sustainability work in IETF (everyone > contributes) > • Brief presentation of sustainability insights/poweff > updates, incl. look at a more concrete example > • Any other short updates? > • next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design > Team, call for a BOF? > > > As we would like to leave time to discuss and review **next steps**, for > the overview we propose not more than 20 min. > As authors from specific drafts, please let me know which draft(s) you > would like to review, we would like to make sure that we could fit them > into the 20 min > > Safe travels, and have a nice weekend > > Marisol Palmero, on behalf of the authors of sustainability insights& > poweff drafts > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
