[irtf-discuss] Re: [E-impact] Re: Draft Charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG)

["Ali Rezaki (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Dirk,

Thanks very much for your further elaboration.

I have included some feedback in-line below.

Additionally, I want to add that, it is possible that we could create individual research tracks within SUSTAIN-RG, as long as they are compatible with the vision of the RG and we have researchers contributing to them. So, a first step could be that we identify such focus areas and ask the research community to develop survey papers to outline the state-of-art and research gaps in these areas.

Looking forward to discussing more in the Side Meeting on Wednesday.

Many thanks again for your detailed feedback.

Best regards,

Ali


From: Dirk Trossen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 1:19 PM
To: Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; Dan York <york=[e-mail]>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rezaki=[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Eve Schooler at Gmail <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [E-impact] Re: Draft Charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG)

Dear Ali, all,

Thanks for coming back on this. Please see inline.

Best,

Dirk

From: Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 05 November 2024 12:33
To: Dirk Trossen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dan York <york=[e-mail]<mailto:york=[e-mail]>>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rezaki=[e-mail]<mailto:ali.rezaki=[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Eve Schooler at Gmail <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [E-impact] Re: Draft Charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG)

Dear Dirk,

Thanks very much for both of your e-mails and for bringing up this very important aspect of sustainability and your proposals to improving the associated text in the charter.

In the current research areas listed in the charter, the first item that states “Reduction of the Internet footprint (environmental, social, economic)”  in fact covers the reduction of the carbon emissions caused by Internet infrastructure and operations. Internet environmental footprint covers climate impact (GHG emissions), circularity and biodiversity loss, prominently. You are absolutely right that currently, ITU-T singles out carbon emissions reductions as priority number 1 for the ICT sector. So, the topic is of great importance for the RG.
[DOT] Thanks for this and I agree on the footprint reference. My concern is more one of scope since, personally, I do see the sustainability discussion as a crucial one for our industry. But my suggested focus on (a) carbon reduction and (b) networking more specifically, was meant to help researchers find their way into this group with ideas, research and experimental solutions to, well, carbon-reduced networking. This, in itself, is already an ambitious goal in terms of attracting a well-contributing audience of researchers from within the Internet community and outside of it.

[DOT] “Sustainability”, as important as it is, includes a wider macro-level discussion, and thus wider audience, that I fear we will have trouble not only capturing but reconciling within a single RG into a fruitful discussion for all to participate. But again, don’t get me wrong on the importance of a wider sustainability discussion, understanding, and actions.

[Ali: Thanks! I fully appreciate the importance of attracting focused researchers on a topic to develop impactful outputs, without distraction from too many moving parts. We also recognize the importance of having a multi-disciplinary systems approach to link different aspects of sustainability to create real-world impact and outcomes. Otherwise, a certain technology enabler could have  a successful result in its own domain but its contribution to the sustainability of networking could be limited for not having considered other factors impacting take up and use of technology, etc. So, we’ll explore a workable strategy to address both.]

As you also noted, we tried to capture this in sub-bullet 3 of the first research area but we will improve it with your suggested text to emphasize that we are looking for both radically new and experimental techniques and methodologies as well as those that can be implemented on the existing set-up, which was indeed our proposed coverage. The RG is a place for research and exploration.
[DOT] Yes, indeed, I did notice the third sub-bullet, as mentioned, but read it more along the lines of improving efficiency of existing mechanisms towards carbon reduction. That is important for sure and there is, I believe, much to achieve.

[Ali: Efficiency is not the only aspect here, we are calling for  a fresh look at how GHG emissions from networking could be reduced.]

[DOT] But this also aligns with the bullet Dan suggested since carbon reduction of the existing Internet is key to “keeping the lights on” in the face of climate change. As an RG, I am looking for a more explicit call to researchers to question the boundaries and assumptions (and solutions) of existing methods to directly aim at achieving carbon reduction in the mechanism itself, not only its operation. Hence, those (new) solutions may question and overcome what may be existing, possibly inherently wasteful methods already deployed. This is the exploration aspect I was aiming at adding more explicitly with the proposed text.

[Ali: What Dan suggested is about climate change adaptation. How to adapt our technology, products and services to the changing climate. It is distinct from climate change mitigation, where GHG emissions reductions are prominently covered. I will add exploration more prominently. As mentioned, this is an RG with primary expectation of research exploration and publications.]

[DOT]  Reconciling with Dan’s point, I think we have two strands of exploration: increase efficiency, thus reduce carbon emissions, of the existing solutions, while also soliciting new solutions that already define a more efficient baseline as a possible replacement of an existing solution. Right now, the wording of sub-bullet 3 of item 1 and item 4 in the list could be more clearly separated to capture those strands. Also, I think sub-bullet 3 of item 3 should be listed as a first-order item, in addition to current main item 4. That would make item 1 more macro-level. Here, I would move current item 2 as a sub-item under item 1, keeping current item 3 as a first-order one, then having the call for methods to improve on existing Internet methods (keeping lights on) and research on new methods (question the boundaries of existing methods) as a last bullet item (with those two sub-bullets).

[Ali: Thanks Dirk. I will indeed clarify item 4 as Adaptation actions as clarified by Dan. Item 3 as the exploration of new methods for reducing the GHG emissions. We are open to all types of contributions either incremental or step-change ones as long as they improve our understanding of the phenomena from a research perspective.]

One last aspect is about terminology: “carbon intensity” is about the energy mix used, which is also referred to as emission intensity and emission factor, is a measure of the carbon-equivalent emission of consumed electricity, i.e., grams of carbon-equivalent per kilowatt hour (gCO2e/KWh). Carbon aware networking takes carbon intensity information to make routing and traffic steering decisions. Reducing carbon intensity is rather beyond the control of networking but reducing our carbon emissions certainly is.
[DOT] I do understand the difference and for the purpose of this initial discussion, an emphasis on carbon reduction may be best, indeed, although (as a side note) a metric on carbon intensity could well be a, e.g., traffic steering criteria, preferring a “cleaner produced energy” site as a network location over another. We had a brief discussion on this yesterday after the ANRP presentation (which I greatly enjoyed) when extending the routing aspect towards the steering (i.e., site selection).

[Ali: Developing metrics is close to standardization and is demarcated as IETF focus, even if GREEN WG doesn’t currently consider GHGs. The RG could of course demonstrate the gaps in this area.]

One of the first things we want to do is to develop a common sustainability terminology and concepts reference.
[DOT] Agreed!

Thanks very much once more for your engagement. Looking forward to discussing further on Wednesday’s side meeting.
[DOT] Looking forward to Wednesday, too, and the discussion as a whole! It is hugely important to have and progress well on it!

[Ali: Thanks so much again for your engagement and input. See you tomorrow.]

Best regards,

Ali


From: Dirk Trossen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 7:44 PM
To: Dan York <york=[e-mail]<mailto:york=[e-mail]>>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rezaki=[e-mail]<mailto:ali.rezaki=[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eve Schooler at Gmail <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [E-impact] Re: Draft Charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG)

Dear all,

After the ultra-quick chat with and suggestion by Eve to send a possible rewording to the charter along the raised concern in my previous email, let me propose a more explicit “carbon reduction” text, revising the following text

  *   Understanding new methodologies, architectures and strategies to ensure Internet resilience in the face of sustainability challenges, considering resource impacts, carbon efficiency and operational complexity.
towards

“Achieving quantifiable and verifiable carbon intensity reduction through new methodologies, architectures, algorithms, as well as protocols, which also lend themselves to experimental verification and eventual introduction to the operational community in the IETF”

This bullet item is in difference to bullet item 1, sub-item 3 in the charter, which I read as novel approaches to existing Internet technologies (such as presented in today’s ANRP’s presentation on carbon-aware routing).

I hope this helps and looking forward to the discussion on Wednesday.

Best,

Dirk


From: Dirk Trossen
Sent: 03 November 2024 16:25
To: 'Dan York' <york=[e-mail]<mailto:york=[e-mail]>>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rezaki=[e-mail]<mailto:ali.rezaki=[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eve Schooler at Gmail <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [E-impact] Re: Draft Charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG)

All,

Chiming in at this stage, I am glad to see the attempt to tackle this highly important topic as a possible RG!

But I wanted to hook into the same point raised by Dan, namely soliciting more prominently research work that aims at changing key networking functions towards a clear goal of carbon reduction. To me, the point quoted by Dan below is somewhat too broad and implicit in regards to the key action needed to improve on the Internet’s footprint, namely  carbon reduction (my cynical me may position recent approaches to fire up nuclear reactors to ensure DC power supplies as a means to “ensure Internet resilience in the face of sustainability challenges”).

Specifically, I would like to see carbon reduction more clearly and explicitly fleshed out in the text. Even carbon awareness, while clearly needed, is not going far enough for me. The GREEN WG and other work on measurements already target increased awareness but I feel that an RG in the IRTF ought be bolder in soliciting work that actively seeks to REDUCE the carbon footprint, including to reflect this goal more explicitly in the mission and possibly even name of the RG; I personally find “sustainability and the Internet” too broad, requiring text that handprint is not the focus but footprint is, all of which an explicit focus on carbon reduction of its enabling methods would make clearer. To bring a suggestion on this to the table, I can offer even two: CARENET (carbon-reduced networking) or CARING (carbon-reduced Internet for the Next Generation).


Best,

Dirk
P.S.: maybe folks like Dan and myself are possibly looking for an RG that might go alongside a more governance/policy/regulation level SUSTAIN RG, one that is more explicit in the solicitation of works that we could position along the pathway from emerging research towards the operational community in the IETF.



From: Dan York <york=[e-mail]<mailto:york=[e-mail]>>
Sent: 01 November 2024 19:49
To: Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rezaki=[e-mail]<mailto:ali.rezaki=[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eve Schooler at Gmail <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [E-impact] Re: Draft Charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG)

Ali,

This is great! I very much like an RG on this topic. The draft charter looks good. My one question is - do you also see this RG encouraging research into how to *adapt* the Internet’s infrastructure to continue to operate in the face of climate change? i.e. what do we need to do to ensure the Internet’s operations? How do we "keep it on" while the climate is changing?

I read your last bullet under Research Areas that way:

  *   Understanding new methodologies, architectures and strategies to ensure Internet resilience in the face of sustainability challenges, considering resource impacts, carbon efficiency and operational complexity.
… but I wasn’t 100% sure. Is this what you mean by this bullet?

Thanks for leading on this,
Dan

--
Dan York, Senior Advisor  |  Internet Society
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> | [phone] | https://mastodon.social/@danyork

[cid:image001.png@01DB2F9A.C5137F60]
internetsociety.org<https://www.internetsociety.org/> | @internetsociety<https://twitter.com/internetsociety>

On Oct 31, 2024, at 7:39 PM, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <ali.rezaki=[e-mail]<mailto:ali.rezaki=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear E-impact, Green WG, IRTF-discuss Lists, Colleagues,

We have been working on a draft charter for an IRTF Proposed Research Group: Sustainability and the Internet Research Group (SUSTAIN RG). Please find enclosed v1.0 of this draft charter proposal for your review and feedback.

We have scheduled a Public Side Meeting at IETF 121 in Dublin, on 6 November 2024, at 14:30 GMT (UTC+0) in Wicklow Hall 2A, to present the background and details of the charter and to have an open discussion. We are aware that public side meetings are difficult to attend remotely. Accordingly, we will arrange an additional on-line meeting about a week after the IETF 121 to ensure adequate access for remote participation as well.

We have created a GitHub repository for the development of the charter with community feedback and the management of the side meeting at: https://github.com/rezaki-ali/IRTF_SUSTAIN_RG. The draft charter is available in this repository as well.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would be able to review the draft charter proposal for the SUSTAIN RG and kindly share your feedback with us please. We would also be very happy to see you at the SUSTAIN RG Public Side Meeting at IETF 121 and/or at the on-line meeting to be arranged just after IETF 121.

Many thanks to Colin Perkins, Jari Arkko, Suresh Krishnan, Noa Zilberman, Jukka Manner, Romain Jakob, Michael Welzl, Chris Adams for their review of earlier drafts and their feedback. Many thanks to Dirk Kutscher, David R. Oran, Lixia Zhang, Kurtis Heimerl for their input on priorities and perspectives.

Looking forward to developing the SUSTAIN RG charter with your contributions.

Many thanks and best regards,

Ali and Eve

<IRTF_Proposed_Research_Group_SUSTAIN_RG_Draft_Charter_v1_0.pdf>--
E-impact mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>