Re: [E-impact] [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

["Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi George,

> On Mar 25, 2024, at 10:31 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Without wanting to push too hard, I would personally push back on
> E-impact becoming a WG or having any solidity beyond an experimental
> ongoing activity.

There is no intent to do so George. Any WG efforts will have to go through the IETF BoF process and be independently decided on their merits. The e-impact program will have no specific input into any BoF effort other than the common participants and (hopefully) shared information.

> I am simply unconvinced there is substantive
> protocol work in energy burden to be done in IETF protocol space at
> this time.
> 
> * I absolutely believe there is an energy impact issue in DC, in long
> distance communications and maintenance of RF carrier, for the IEEE,
> for 3GPP, for economies with unreliable power facing the question to
> house a CDN or long-line it to somewhere else. These problems lie in
> other people's standards bodies.
> 
> * I absolutely do believe we can theorise physical and link layer
> protocol changes which reduce energy burdens (in many cases with cost,
> like no 0RTT responses because we have to re-establish link) -And that
> things like delay tolerant networking or 6LOWPAN go into this space
> sometimes.
> 
> * I also absolutely do believe there may in future be clearer drive to
> do work on energy in IETF, in protocol design for DC or other contexts
> where it has to be exposed through the protocol stack to the
> application. Therefore I can say there COULD be work to be done here,
> in the future.
> 
> About as far as I would go right now is a problem statement. And, a
> watch-and-review status.
> 
> I'm not in charge here and I don't have some magic veto card. If
> people wanted to continue, I wouldn't oppose a list being hosted, but
> I would be uncomfortable with positions being taken in public implying
> the IETF or the IAB have substantive work to do here: I don't see it.
> 
> Maybe the IAB differs.

Not speaking for the IAB, but based on the input from the IAB at the creation of the program, I concur. Here is how I see it

-> The IAB program will not and cannot take up substantial protocol work
-> If there is engineering work ready for IETF to take up, the IETF will independently decide on the readiness of such work to be taken up in an existing WG or BoF. (Similarly any research that is ready to be worked on will be evaluated by the IRTF to be worked on in an RG or proposed RG)

I think where we potentially disagree is that whether there is any engineering work at all to be done right now. As Michael W. said down thread (and I agree) there is clearly some metrics related work that is ready for engineering and that needs to be handled by the IETF.

Thanks
Suresh