Re: [OPSAWG] [E-impact] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,

> On Apr 10, 2024, at 8:00 AM, Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Suresh,
> 
> Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!

Yep. No worries.

> 
> Please find my follow-up inline below, and in the meantime, one additional question to you -- context (my emphasis):
>     • 
> I seem to have gotten the impression, from your words and IAB program lead slides, that there was no eimpact-related meeting in Brisbane,

Correct. There was no e-impact program meeting in Brisbane. 

> and the goal was to push drafts through the respective WGs and not through a WG-forming BOF:

Toerless did mention that some of the draft authors were thinking of a side meeting in Brisbane and it was not official.

>         • https://youtu.be/bfpuL1mkr3U?feature=shared&t=9646
>         • https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01
>             • "Metrics – Push through the WGs"
>             • "Benchmarking scenario or methodology standardization – BMWG"
>             • "Carbon-aware routing – IRTF? TVR?"
>             • "Do an interim session on backcasting what we need to do"
>         • https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00
>             • "Suresh mentioned that the dispatch function is certainly in scope and depending on the readiness for engineering the work will end up in the IETF or the IRTF. "
>     • But then, you were proponent of a side-meeting
>         • https://wiki.ietf.org/en/meeting/119/sidemeetings
>             • "Power Metrics: concrete usage example", "[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]"
>             •  that said " (4) next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team, call for a BOF?"

Marisol and Jan organized the side meeting and sent the invites fairly wide to the WGs where the concerned drafts were previously discussed. Since both of them were remote, I am listed as a contact in case there were any local issues in the meeting room. 

>     • Even though the IAB slides on IETF119 say:
>         • "Short term focus on metrics, benchmarking with dispatch to relevant IETF WGs" https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-iabopen-chair-slides-00
>         • "No in-person program meetings at IETF-119 But feel free to join the program mailing list: [e-mail] and [e-mail]" https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-ietf-sessa-119-internet-architecture-board-iab-report-00
> 
> 
> The question: Are you in favor of running e-impact dispatching work to existing WGs (as you said), or having a new "green" WG (as proponent)?

There is no green WG yet. There will hopefully be a green *BOF* in Vancouver and the sponsoring AD along with the IESG will decide whether a WG needs to be formed or if the work needs to be divvied up among existing working groups. I will not be a proponent of this BoF, but I am extremely supportive of the work happening (either in a new working group or in existing working groups).
Also, E-impact cannot and will not do standards track work. Any standards track work has to be done in an IETF working group. Hope this is clear.

> 
> Please find follow-up responses inline below:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:02 PM Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>   Since your message was sent to Rob, I will let him respond, but I wanted to chime on some things you said about the e-impact program.
> 
> Thanks for this -- the salutation did not imply exclusivity.
>   >  On 3/25/24, 5:09 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" [e-mail] wrote:
> > …
> >  A second thought is that, while on the surface getting a couple of document with ‘green metrics’ is useful and might seem net-positive, knee-jerk reacting on tactics misaligned with strategy can further fragment the Eimpact work (which already can be characterized as ‘having a hard time finding itself’ with work from 2022 and no output).
>  The e-impact program was created at the end of August 2023, barely seven months ago (and not 2022 as you mentioned). Announcement here:
>  https://www.iab.org/announcements/eimpact-program/
> 
> You are absolutely right, and my mis-writing, with apologies. I meant (and should have written) the IAB e-impact Workshop, which gave way to the IAB e-impact Program -- in lieu of forming a WG.

No worries.

>   You seemed to want to run this program as a WG with set outputs. I had responded to you on list to mention that it was not
>  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/e-impact/nq7_ToPvRjIm612NwonOqDL-3zI/
> 
> To be clear, I do not want to run this program -- that is up to the program leads.
> 
> However, the e-impact program chair (i.e., lead) slides show the acknowledged need for some management, akin a WG. Quoting from https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01: 
> "
> ● Updating datatracker with all related drafts on this topic 
> ● And a wiki page with drafts on this topic, along with status, next steps, etc.
> "
>   
> Quoting relevant part of my mail above:
>  “IAB programs don’t have milestones like WGs specifically because of the unclear nature of the space they are exploring. If you recall the initial meeting with the IAB regarding creation of the program that you participated in, this was something that was very clearly stated by various members of the IAB. If the work that needs to be done is clear it will be dispatched to a WG, an RG or if no relevant space exists to a BoF or proposed RG.”
>  >  A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more e-impactful) WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB Program :-|
>  Care sharing more info about this. Who did you ask for a WG and when? I am surprised because Jari and I have always and repeatedly made clear that the IAB program will not be doing any standards track work, and will delegate the work to IETF WGs/BoFs or IRTF RGs/pRGs. If you had created a proposal for a “more e-impactful” WG please feel free to share that proposed charter here. I am sure all of us would love to see it.
> 
> I am very surprised to see this response... 
> 
> After the Dec 2022 IAB e-impact program, there was the question of Next Steps, and how to further the work.
> The suggestion for a WG (which is a default-gateway answer, so unsurprising that it was on the table), was captured in the 
> Chat log:https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-04/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-04-sessa-webex-chat-log-00
> "Concretely, I wonder whether we should be chartering a WG within the IETF (perhaps a bit like IOTOPS) with a goal of coordinating this work within the IETF. "
> Chair Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-04/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-04-sessa-09-workshop-next-steps-01.pdf
> "• A new working group ”e-interest group”?"
> Unfortunately, there seems to be a 403 and no access to the workshop mailing list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/e-impact-workshop-attendees/
> 
> Subsequently this was discussed at IETF116:
> https://github.com/cpignata/e-impact/blob/main/ietf116/materials/08-ietf116-environmental-impact-outro.pdf and https://github.com/cpignata/e-impact/blob/main/ietf116/materials/00-ietf116-environmental-impact-intro-and-purpose.pdf
> "Next Hope: BOF? Others?"

I was responding to your text where you said "A third thought is that we had asked for a (broader and more e-impactful) WG a year ago, and that was shot down in favor of this IAB Program :-|”. I was asking *who you asked for a WG, and who shot you down and referred you to the program instead*. As far as I can see, none of the links you provided provide any details regarding this or a proposed charter for this (broader and more e-impactful) WG. 

Thanks
Suresh