IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Network Energy Management

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2022 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F68C157B49 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 13:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tk3yV6f4M7Fm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 13:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x36.google.com (mail-oa1-x36.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::36]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63B31C13C20B for <IETF@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 13:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x36.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-10ea30a098bso4097540fac.8 for <IETF@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 13:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:subject:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:from:from:to:cc; bh=ZmISN4uYUdd6hYeaTo30J1SC83Wm2Sru+ZD/QtIiuY8=; b=hYkMqZvn8Dm3IG3QfJmUEqBVTkT2qo+MX22R6xRq35zUGM9zdaBvbP5ieZeYsvkHcC hHn8drJm2mvU8XL4eGGatYyp8C3/53pKJJGkwDM57GLciH8FPQu8hNFWq6Xj5+XFqUHn aBodBdtdtzeSRSmqyrscIOXJMD1vUTDImPxjVcaVz4+2dpEbJpGkN7D7xGRfzo3cr70T jw0WIf+61naaQ6I1m2Mhb1PBrQi7EbO9qzU/PG9LTOKs8mK5zBXRzObIc7yqRHrSwlLD /GwJLQ7s1lL+Jvrx2DDRaReJuS0xw/V0waHlQJW7AsBEBnBInfeKAv5Oj6iuuZeo1r4C UXUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:subject:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=ZmISN4uYUdd6hYeaTo30J1SC83Wm2Sru+ZD/QtIiuY8=; b=t0BbrX+ty5QVFXaEEWVIzXX0H7exRsT3XfHI3mhUnurJW45EGMymoNCdbQQkIg6FNb 99eltkZMwYDl1avgk2EFm+QfrRb2QzqbfMB6mTLvhtxhUHUcGEA6Z4tcDqQdXTGJ+99Q 2DUbuFLpH1vi4hrlzlyaWoF+S7QdxW04slCniQbK7UCxQuBc11A4nAdZdOqry4Lnjaw4 GSinRqokKTpwprprQ8hq4GElnujjh+j0GNmNbNTxHRy1oUJUUs326YUd5Sd4OSKTYf3m kWINAP6Ag80FZ0O3nuW8DVfACNESzEs5MPdBJor8/ncGFePGaLtANNImzFnO232ZKGAt CCXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0MzpnrwpY+1U8JOW6tYWTntV3Z/ilITmj+mFXgwUGfTut2FtCl hwVi7N7bahFvXu42JzfEHCI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5FbTKuwMv19K52H2z0fEKrm3fGg9xrXH/vUjIQRQ+bmq0MNa4qQAzJtmm/f7r1PPb2NsSqkg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:73d4:b0:10f:e9f:165a with SMTP id a20-20020a05687073d400b0010f0e9f165amr4069263oan.222.1659730930981; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 13:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:1702:290:6530:dd6c:f415:6e9e:718a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q8-20020a056830232800b0061c4a7a37fasm894785otg.41.2022.08.05.13.22.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Aug 2022 13:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Network Energy Management
In-Reply-To: <8FBAF87A-2690-4543-9713-0F22D1423B8E@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 13:22:08 -0700
Cc: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF <IETF@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <A8687A4E-BA7A-4375-B7E2-C57ADD396842@gmail.com>
References: <8FBAF87A-2690-4543-9713-0F22D1423B8E@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19G71)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xXzOB8azhS0a9adwCRvTsSvpFl8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 20:22:12 -0000

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 <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps it is time for a new mandatory section in RFCs: sustainability?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email