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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Wes, *:

In general, what you describe is a noble goal, and the IETF ANIMA WG that i co-chair
came out of this very process from NMRG RFCs, so i do recommend that option whenever it is 
applicable.

However, in the case of sustain, my gut feeling is that the scope of interest may be
far larger than what may directly get into standardization in IETF, and we should not
unnecessarily exclude that broader scope.

For example, i mentioned a layer of analytics required to deduce better fine-grained
power metrics from less granular/accurate or even dispersed sources of power information.
Research, especially practical one in this area would very much help to derive more
analysis and would ultimately end up being a core part of larger systems involving GREEN-WG
measurements. But just like algorithms/methods in e.g.: PCE/SDE controllers, this type of
research results barely translates into direct IETF output - but it is needed to make the
IETF work more useful.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 03:31:21AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Michael Welzl <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > The SUSTAIN RG will be different. We have a general plan to constructively work towards
> > sustainability in networking; of course we want to help the GREEN WG if we can, etc. etc. -
> 
> A potentially bold suggestion: Since the IRTF has always had the goal of
> executing research that eventually helps drive the forward direction of
> the IETF, maybe this would be a good opportunity to actually put into
> the wording of the charter that the goal of SUSTAIN is to rapidly
> produce research results that can directly drive toward solutions that
> can be implemented in IETF WGs like GREEN.
> 
> The careful thing to avoid, hopefully "of course", is not to state that
> SUSTAIN has the ability to force a particular WG to do something -- it's
> more to document a hopefully direct relationship.  I think the wording
> would need to be done carefully (and I'm not sure my sentence above is
> perfect, as such).
> 
> -- 
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI

-- 
---
[e-mail]