Re: Network Energy Management

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

A comment that I would make on this not having skills line of argument, is that about 25 so years ago, very few had security skills and that very few thought about the security aspects of their protocol designs. Then the mandatory security section was introduced and the security area started objecting to protocols that had poor security. Now, I hope that we all think about the security implications of our work.

I don’t know what technique we should apply to sustainability, but I do know that all long journeys start with a first step, often with an incomplete idea of the route and the difficulties. 

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 6 Aug 2022, at 06:53, Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Joel,
> Why IETF does not have the skill set to define extensions to OSPF to be more energy efficient ? Example of such extensions is described in this recent paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.00035.
> 
> Thanks
> Hesham
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022, 4:22 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I can't speak for Fred, but I don't think we as a community even know what "energy efficient protocol" means.  Much less how that trades off against all the other aspects of protocol design.
>> 
>> We do consider message size and frequency when we design protocols.  We consider those aspects along with lots of others.  if that is "designing energy efficient protocols" then we already do so.  On the other hand, design for issues such as to to partially wake up a sleeping device is generally outside our remit and skill set.  And is meaningless for many of our devices.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> 
>> Joel
>> 
>> On 8/5/2022 7:18 PM, Hesham ElBakoury wrote:
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> Do you think  IETF engineers have the skill sets to design energy efficient protocols or enhance existing ones to be more energy efficient ?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hesham
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022, 1:22 PM Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Echoing a previous post, I’m not sure sustainability is part of our skill set. If we were to try to forcibly add it, I suspect we’d get the same level of response security originally got: “sustainability is not specified in this document”.
>>>> 
>>>> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>>>> 
>>>> > On Aug 5, 2022, at 2:26 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > Perhaps it is time for a new mandatory section in RFCs: sustainability?
>>>>