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

[Dirk Trossen <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ali,

Thanks for your reply. I think we are converging well, please see inline, snipped for brevity.

Best,

Dirk

From: Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 05 November 2024 16:31
To: Dirk Trossen <[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 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.
[DOT] indeed, I think capturing “research tracks” or focus areas is a good approach, which also allows to track progress along those tracks. I think this aligns with my suggestion to place the solicitation of new methods (arch, methodologies, algorithms, protocols) at the same level as Dan’s point on adapting existing operations in the face of climate change (the “keeping the lights on” track), while I see the first bullet item (with its sub-items) as the more macro-level track. Such structuring makes much sense to me, i.e., track 1 as macro-level research, track 2 as research on adapting existing Internet ops, and track 3 as research on new methods geared to carbon reduction (see comment below how link both track 2 and 3 to the macro-level work in track 1).

Looking forward to discussing more in the Side Meeting on Wednesday.
[DOT] same here!

[SNIP…]

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] I understand that. Here, I would hope to see the synergy of having “track 1”, from which I would expect the framework for a wider GHG emission evaluation, feeding into the evaluation on methods in both track 2 (on adapting existing methods, as suggested by Dan) and in track 3 (on soliciting new methods). Generally, I would expect most initial work in track 2 and 3 being driven by efficiency and carbon reduction but insights from track 1 could hopefully allow for an increasingly wider and more holistic view. Does this make sense in terms of structuring the research tracks, works, and expected outputs? If so, I would happily spend some cycles on encoding this in a revised charter FWIW.