Hi Curtis, Comments in-line below.
Thanks, Mingui ________________________________________ From: Curtis Villamizar [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:25 To: Mingui Zhang Cc: Tony Li; [email protected]; [email protected]; Susan Hares Subject: Re: PANET side-meeting In message <4552f0907735844e9204a62bbdd325e732aff...@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> Mingui Zhang writes: > Hi Tony and Curtis, > > Let me retrospect some history to clear up the chaos floating around. > > On Feb 4th, I organized a conference call among a dozen of guys (from > operators, vendors and Universities) who are interested in PANET, in > order to prepare for a side meeting in IETF. There was a rough > consensus that a side-meeting is a good way to call for interest, > coordination and contribution to PANET. However, requests was > _prematurely_ sent out afterwards, without including all the effort > from the conference attendees. I hope this email can get us back on > track. So I change its title. I could find no record of this in a google search. Nothing that seemed relevant for "PANET meeting", "PANET conference call", or "Power Aware Networking" other than IETF chatter and the already discussed academic papers. Is there any reference to this meeting? An closed ad-hoc conference call does not justify a new WG, even an IRTF WG. [zmg] We never argue this is a conference call justifies anything. No commitment is promised either. Would you care to say who attended the conference call and whether anyone took notes that could be shared? [zmg] I did record the conference (web and audio). However, the recording is currently shared only among guys who are interested in pushing PANET _forward_. As I said, they are from more than one communities. I will talk with other attendees whether they feel it is proper to announce their names. Anyway, you can come to attend the side-meeting to grasp what was going on. Was this just among the authors of the docs sent to RTGWG? [If so, it would seem more like a Huawei internal meeting with a few guests.] [zmg] The situation was totally different as what you speculated. > I believe the most efficient way for us is to play the game according > to the rule of IETF/IRTF. Therefore, we are trying to find a place to > accommodate the side-meeting. We should not delve into discussion of > specific solutions before we make clear the problem scope. A charter > should be published, which will help us figure out what is the problem > we are trying to solve. Before that, let me add some pointers of > drafts from my side. I believe these drafts can also help people to > figure out the scope of PANET. Power-Aware Networks (PANET): Problem > Statement, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-panet-problem-statement/ > Use Cases for Power-Aware Networks, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-panet-use-cases/ > Requirements for Power Aware Network, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-panet-requirement/ The usual way to do this formally in IETF is to request a BOF. Informally you can ask for a room or just get together at the bar (the venue of choice for an informal ad hoc BOF a decade or more ago). [zmg] Yes, you are right. Our target was a side-meeting (bar-BoF) and we are trying to request a room. > On the 84th IETF rtgwg f2f meeting, there were two presentations > relevant to greening. I also list them as follows FYI. A Framework > and Requirements for Energy Aware Control Planes, > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-00, [slides] > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtgwg-3.pptx > Power-aware Routing and Traffic Engineering: Requirements, Approaches, > and Issues, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-greennet/, > [slides] > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtgwg-4.pptx > > Thanks, > Mingui Zhang > Huawei Technologies At IETF, no activity at all on the WG mailing list usually means not enough interest and therefore no advancement. I mentioned earlier on the prior thread that I had just quickly read draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-00 and did not think this work was worth the IETF (or IRTF, if I can speak up in advance) in its current form. The topic might be worth considering, but the work seems to take a naive approach. Whether treating interfaces and links as a black box and using routing provides any appreciable gain in real networks remains to be proven. [zmg] I'd like to hear your _specific_ feedbacks on other drafts. [end of comments] These documents are trying to write requirements, build a framework, and specify protocols, all based on unproven assertions. If the work goes to IRTF, the first order of business must be to provide compelling proof or at least compelling argument that a specific approach will have benefit in *real* networks, not hypothetic networks, and not real topologies with a hypothetic network architecture (ie: choice of type of equipment and build out). Curtis > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Tony Li > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:02 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing > > community > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't think this is even material ready for IRTF consideration, but > > > that is up to Tony and IRTF to decide. > > > > > > As always, the IRTF does not require well-formed ideas as a > > pre-requisite for starting work. Instead, there needs to be a clear > > problem statement (i.e., a charter) and a sufficient group of serious > > researchers who are committed to following through in a committed > > manner. > > > > Note that it is, by definition, research. It is expected to have a > > non-trivial likelihood of failure. > > > > Regards, > > Tony
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
