[Green] Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-powerbench

["Chengen(GenChen)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit and All,

Based on the initial review of the GREEN and BMWG power/energy drafts, I would like to propose the following three alignment issues and potential optimization directions.

1. Power Measurement states in the BMWG draft to be aligned with GREEN Power State
Issue: The BMWG draft defines five power measurement states (Base, Idle, Idle+, Typical, and Power with Traffic Load). The term "low-power mode" appears once in the Idle and Idle+ power measurement description, but no explicit mapping to GREEN's "Power State" concept.
Potential Optimizations: BMWG draft to explicitly mention in its five measurement states to consider the GREEN Power States info for reference, the existing "low-power mode" reference to be aligned with GREEN's Power State taxonomy.

2. EER Definition Alignment
Issue: GREEN draft defines EER using total throughput while BMWG draft defines EER using weighted throughput.
Potential Optimizations: GREEN draft to update its EER definition to clarify using both NDR-based total throughput and weighted throughput meet the requirement as they have linear relationship.

3. Traffic Model Definition in GREEN
Issue: GREEN terminology currently lacks any traffic model definitions. BMWG uses traffic type (IMIX or rfc2544 packets), load levels (e.g., 0%/30%/100%), and weighting factors (Bi) without foundational terminology in GREEN.
Potential Optimizations: Add to GREEN terminology Traffic Model (traffic mix, load levels, weighting factors). BMWG draft to reference these GREEN terms where it uses traffic type, load levels and weighting factors.

BR,
GenChen


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: 2026年8月25日 0:15
To: Chengen(GenChen) <[e-mail]>; Marisol <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Getting Ready for Energy-Efficient Networking Discussion List <[e-mail]>; bmwg <[e-mail]>; ippm <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Green] Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-powerbench

Dear all,
On 23/07/2026 13:26, Chengen(GenChen) wrote:
Hi All,

I agree with Marisol and would like to emphasize the following points.

1. The two efforts are complementary without conflict. BMWG doc addresses offline laboratory power measurement and benchmarking, while GREEN docs focuse on online energy monitoring and energy management for live network operations.
Complimentary but terribly aligned.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-powerbench figure 1 is completely aligned with figure 3 in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-green-framework/
The fact that the BMWG document focuses on a DUT in lab, as opposed to the GREEN one that focuses on a real device with a physical meter, is not that important.
Both uses the Metering Relationship relationship
​
2. Terminology and metrics need joint review. BMWG shall extend based on GREEN’s foundational terminology and metrics, instead of defining separate standalone vocabulary. Cross review is essential to prevent inconsistent semantics.
Yes, please.
​
3. The BMWG doc may elaborate on lab measurement precision, relationship properties and fundamental measurement capabilities, and clarify how offline benchmark measurements can align with GREEN-defined base policies.
Even if we know that BMWG uses the DUT as black box, it would great to know the DUT Power State.

Regards, Benoit

BR,

Genchen

发件人：Marisol <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄 送：Getting Ready for Energy-Efficient Networking Discussion List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;bmwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;ippm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
时 间：2026-07-23 11:31:09
主 题：[bmwg] Re: [Green] draft-ietf-bmwg-powerbench

Hi Med,
this might require a bit more time, but now that we are still in
Vienna, and we can discuss things "life" just want to highlight a few
things.


PowerBench defines a laboratory benchmarking methodology,  under
controlled conditions.
The consideration for PowerBench is to have external Power Meter
measuring PSU input power on a Device Under Test (DUT) under
controlled traffic loads. It is not an operational monitoring
framework.
This distinction is important: GREEN is about what a device reports
about itself during operations;
PowerBench is about what an external instrument measures in a test
lab. They are complementary, not competing.
I think PowerBench it is ideal to deep dive in idle power and give
some baseline for some of the real time measurements considered in
GREEN WG, setting up thresholds to consider in operations.


* PowerBench defines EER:
PowerBench gives it a name, a unit, and a precise method/formula. The
GREEN framework discusses the concept but never settles on a formula
or name. Im not convinced we need to include it in GREEN framework
though.
There are other terminology that should be aligned or mentioned in the
terminology GREEN draft:
* Total Power (PowerBench) and total-power-input(GREEN) at device
level are equivalent terms
* Base Power(PowerBench), No GREEN power-state maps to this exactly
>>> to be considered in GREEN data model
* Idle Power and Typical power (PowerBench), not alignment in GREEN
* Alignment on the  measurement accuracy from GREEN is missing in
PowerBench: PowerBench uses an external Power Meter measuring PSU,
this should corresponds idealy with accuracy-measured-gold
* The GREEN power state model (power-state-on/off/low-power), has been
discussed in the working group already, but it is not aligned with
powerbench:  Base → Idle → Idle+ → Typical → Full Load.
* PowerBench lists RFC 7460 (EMAN MIB) as a normative reference, I
think it should be informative. And make a note for informative
reference as well for GREEN YANG data model as it replaces RFC 7460,
and framework.
* PowerBench Reporting Format can maps almost entirely onto GREEN YANG leaves.


rgds,
Marisol

Marisol Palmero
https://tidycal.com/marisolietf


On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 9:32 AM <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-bmwg-powerbench was just presented in IPPM/BMWG joint session. It would be appreciated if some volunteers here in GREEN can look into that document and share comments with IPPM/BMWG.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Green mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>



_______________________________________________

Green mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>