Re: [OPSAWG] Some thoughts on Green Networking Metrics

2023-08-17 Thread Tianran Zhou 
I am not quite clear about the applicability of the inventory.
What’s the difference with hardware model or entity model.
I see energy work was related to entity mib in eman before:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/documents/

It seems inventory should be something static from the name. But IMO, the 
energy metrics are dynamic, can will change all the time.

Best,
Tianran

From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander L Clemm
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 7:05 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Some thoughts on Green Networking Metrics


Hi Daniele,

apologies for the late reply.

I think inventory is somewhat orthogonal to this, but of course devices and 
equipment (including chassis, line cards, equipment holders etc) will be 
considered part of inventory.   Therefore via transitive closure it is 
certainly conceivable to make power consumption data accessible via inventory.  
This could make sense as part of a consolidated controller view of a network.  
However, on a network element itself, the network inventory aspect would not 
apply but the metrics should still be available so the device/equipment level 
category still applies.  As to whether device level data should be replicated 
as part of network inventory data  would presumably depend on the use case.

--- Alex
On 7/26/2023 6:35 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) wrote:
Hi Alex, all,

Just following up on the comment I did ad the mic earlier today.

The drafts speaks about metrics at: device/equipment level, flow level, path 
level, network level.
The  device/equipment level covers power consumption per chassis, line card and 
port at different loads of traffic, hence IMO should fall into the inventory 
category.
Would you agree?

Cheers,
Daniele




___

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

Re: [OPSAWG] Some thoughts on Green Networking Metrics

2023-08-17 Thread Alexander L Clemm 

Hi Daniele,

apologies for the late reply.

I think inventory is somewhat orthogonal to this, but of course devices 
and equipment (including chassis, line cards, equipment holders etc) 
will be considered part of inventory.   Therefore via transitive closure 
it is certainly conceivable to make power consumption data accessible 
via inventory.  This could make sense as part of a consolidated 
controller view of a network.  However, on a network element itself, the 
network inventory aspect would not apply but the metrics should still be 
available so the device/equipment level category still applies.  As to 
whether device level data should be replicated as part of network 
inventory data  would presumably depend on the use case.


--- Alex

On 7/26/2023 6:35 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) wrote:


Hi Alex, all,

Just following up on the comment I did ad the mic earlier today.

The drafts speaks about metrics at: device/equipment level, flow 
level, path level, network level.


The  device/equipment level covers power consumption per chassis, line 
card and port at different loads of traffic, hence IMO should fall 
into the inventory category.


Would you agree?

Cheers,
Daniele


___
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

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC 9445 on RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services

2023-08-17 Thread Bernie Volz 
You are welcome, but the authors (especially Mohamed) made it easy as they 
stayed on top of it and there was little for me to do.

- Bernie

> On Aug 17, 2023, at 2:16 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)  wrote:
> 
> 
> Well done, authors and WG contributors!  Thank you to Bernie for shepherding 
> this.
>  
> Joe
>  
> From: OPSAWG  on behalf of rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 
> 
> Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 17:40
> To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org , rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org 
> 
> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org , 
> drafts-update-...@iana.org , opsawg@ietf.org 
> 
> Subject: [OPSAWG] RFC 9445 on RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services
> 
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
> 
> 
> RFC 9445
> 
> Title:  RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services 
> Author: M. Boucadair,
> T. Reddy.K,
> A. DeKok
> Status: Standards Track
> Stream: IETF
> Date:   August 2023
> Mailbox:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com,
> kond...@gmail.com,
> al...@freeradius.org
> Pages:  18
> Updates:RFC 4014
> 
> I-D Tag:draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-12.txt
> 
> URL:https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9445
> 
> DOI:10.17487/RFC9445
> 
> This document specifies two new Remote Authentication Dial-In User
> Service (RADIUS) attributes that carry DHCP options. The
> specification is generic and can be applicable to any service that
> relies upon DHCP. Both DHCPv4- and DHCPv6-configured services are
> covered. 
> 
> Also, this document updates RFC 4014 by relaxing a constraint on
> permitted RADIUS attributes in the RADIUS Attributes DHCP suboption.
> 
> This document is a product of the Operations and Management Area Working 
> Group Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> This is now a Proposed Standard.
> 
> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
> for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the 
> standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this 
> memo is unlimited.
> 
> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>   https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
> 
> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
> 
> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
> unlimited distribution.
> 
> 
> The RFC Editor Team
> Association Management Solutions, LLC
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC 9445 on RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services

2023-08-17 Thread Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
Well done, authors and WG contributors!  Thank you to Bernie for shepherding 
this.

Joe

From: OPSAWG  on behalf of rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 

Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 17:40
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org , rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org 

Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org , 
drafts-update-...@iana.org , opsawg@ietf.org 

Subject: [OPSAWG] RFC 9445 on RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.


RFC 9445

Title:  RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services
Author: M. Boucadair,
T. Reddy.K,
A. DeKok
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date:   August 2023
Mailbox:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com,
kond...@gmail.com,
al...@freeradius.org
Pages:  18
Updates:RFC 4014

I-D Tag:draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-12.txt

URL:https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9445

DOI:10.17487/RFC9445

This document specifies two new Remote Authentication Dial-In User
Service (RADIUS) attributes that carry DHCP options. The
specification is generic and can be applicable to any service that
relies upon DHCP. Both DHCPv4- and DHCPv6-configured services are
covered.

Also, this document updates RFC 4014 by relaxing a constraint on
permitted RADIUS attributes in the RADIUS Attributes DHCP suboption.

This document is a product of the Operations and Management Area Working Group 
Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the
standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


___
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