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

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Suresh,

Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!

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, and the
   goal was to push drafts through the respective WGs and not through a
   WG-forming BOF:
      - 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?*"
      - 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)?

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.


>
>
> 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?"



>
>
> > Fifth, and Lastly — frankly I was debating with myself whether to
> mention this privately or not, but since you brought it up and opened the
> topic — another issue. Backdrop: BOF and WG-forming suggestions were sent
> to /dev/null favoring the IAB Program as the solution.
>
>
>
> As mentioned above, please do share more details about your proposal since
> this does not seem right.
>

Above.

Thanks,

Carlos.

>
>
> Thanks
>
> Suresh
>
>
>
> Hi, Rob,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comprehensive email, and for your desire to support the
> industry towards improved energy efficiency!
>
>
>
>
>
> My first reaction is that this direction seems counter to and in conflict
> with the conclusion and decisions from the IAB Program eimpact “interim”
> from just a month before:
>
>
>
> * See Chair Slides <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01>,
> that codified: " Metrics – Push through the WGs ” (etc. etc.)
>
> * See Minutes <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00>,
> that captured: " Suresh agreed and mentioned that the reason for having the
> drafts here is that people to get higher level view since all working
> groups need to have a sustainability angle "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
> There are clear risks like (1) believing that metrics/models are the
> ultimate goal of “eimpact/green’ work, while (as mentioned on eimpact)
> there’s no analysis of the most useful focus area, and (2) forgetting what
> Suresh wrote that many WGs need ‘green’, and this would separate work in a
> corner, as opposed to embedding and integrating it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Fourth, ‘green-bof’ is very very broad, while I understood your desired
> scope to be narrow. This would eclipse eimpact as the shinny new ball, and
> would potentially confuse people on where to participate (outside the lucky
> ones that attended a side meeting)
>
>
>
>
>
> Fifth, and Lastly — frankly I was debating with myself whether to mention
> this privately or not, but since you brought it up and opened the topic —
> another issue. Backdrop: BOF and WG-forming suggestions were sent to
> /dev/null favoring the IAB Program as the solution. What follows is a set
> of factual observations and no judgement or intentionality attached to
> them. But there’s (1) cisco proponents and cisco side-meeting organizer
> despite the eimpact interim, (2) with a Cisco-only I-D [1], (3) a Cisco AD
> meeting with (4) a Cisco IAB Member, in the (5) historically least attended
> meeting, and change direction 180 degrees… Again, no extrapolation or
> conclusion, but even from an appearance or optics perspectives.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, I continue contributing in the industry and field to this topic, and
> I would cautious you consider a bigger picture to see what approach(es)
> actually help.
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope and trust these are useful and clear,
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] I did not see a response to this:
>
>
>
>
>
> Poweff authors,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in
> https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared&t=3534 <color:blue>? Verbatim
> youtube transcript:
>
>
>
>
>
> Many of the um products uh that we have uh mainly in Cisco right we are
> still looking into multivendor and this will be really good for um the
> participants to um provide feedback how this H um standardization of the
> data model might impact in your network equipment but um
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> During IETF 119, I had a couple of discussions with Suresh and Mahesh
> regarding how we actual get some of the short term “green” related work
> happening in IETF to get critical mass and cross review and get published
> in the short term. This seemed to somewhat culminate during the Power
> Metrics side meeting where it is clear that:
>
>
>
> * Various folks, representing different organizations, have various drafts
> related to Green networking.
>
> * Currently these drafts are spread out to different working groups, have
> various amounts of overlap, and it is unclear that they currently have a
> good homes and sufficient traction in IETF to progress effectively.
>
> * There was support in the meeting to target a WG forming BOF for IETF 120
> to create a new WG with a limited targeted charter.
>
>
>
> Hence the proposal from Suresh and I was to try and help coordinate for a
> WG forming BOF for IETF 120 scoped specifically to work on items that are
> understood and achievable in the short term. E.g., roughly, I currently
> think of this work scope as being: e.g., energy related terminology and
> definitions (that should try and leverage and reference existing
> definitions from existing published sources), reporting energy and
> sustainability at the device and network layer via operational YANG models,
> and to facilitate configuration or YANG RPCs to influence and optimise
> power usage on network devices. Longer term energy efficiency and Green
> networking goals are intended to be out of scope for the proposed WG’s
> initial charter, and should continue to be discussed as part of the
> E-Impact IAB program. The exact scope of the charter would be worked out
> between the interested parties in the coming weeks.
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m happy to try and help this work gain traction within the IETF. I
> appreciate that several of the proponents for this work are also from
> Cisco, but I have no vested interest other than trying to help the industry
> take small steps that may help improve energy efficiency in networks (e.g.,
> reporting power usage, and as Tony suggests by selectively powering off
> ports or linecards) to try and help mitigate some of the impacts of the
> Internet on climate change.
>
>
>
> To that end the proposed next steps from that side meeting were:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. For me to request the creation of new open “green-bof” mailing list
> from Mahesh (hopefully should be done over the next few days).
>
> 2. I asked for, and received, permission to subscribe those who attended
> the side meeting, but once created, I also intended to circulate the
> existence of the mailing list to e-impact, and other places where related
> discussions have been taking place, so that others can join.
>
> 3. To create a github location where we can reference drafts and
> collecting work on a BOF proposal and draft charter for the WG (which as I
> stated above, should be narrowly scoped to only the work that is well
> understood and achievable in the short term). If I can get this under the
> IETF github space, great, otherwise I can host a personal github. I’m
> already checking with Mahesh on the feasibility of the github location
> being IETF hosted.
>
> 4. Once the mailing list is up and running, the next step is to arrange a
> few virtual meetings to try and gain consensus on the proposed initial
> scope of the WG, and to start reviewing and pulling together the BOF
> proposal, and charter text.
>
> 5. To submit a BOF request for IETF 120. The key dates being:
>
>      1. Warn the IESG and Secretariat that we are hoping for a BOF by 22nd
> April (note Mahesh is already aware and this has already been informally
> flagged to the IESG)
>
>      2. Get the initial BOF submission in before 5th May
>
>      3. Refine the BOF proposal based on feedback received, and update by
> 7th June
>
>      4. 14th June, we hear back whether the BOF has been approved for IETF
> 120
>
>      5. Continue prepping slides, etc, for the BOF, running up to early
> July
>
> 6. In my experience, despite it being 4 months between IETF meetings, the
> time invariably disappears quickly, so I think that we need to frontload
> the BOF preparation effort to achieve consensus at IETF 120 for creating a
> working group.
>
>
>
> Anyone else in the side meeting, please feel free to add anything that I
> have missed, or correct me, if I have misrepresented anything.
>
>
>
> Carlos, hopefully you are also interested in participating in these
> efforts. If you have any feedback on the planned approach I would be glad
> to hear it.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> From: OPSAWG <[e-mail] <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>> on behalf of Carlos Pignataro <
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>
>
> Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01
>
> To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]
> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>
>
> Cc: [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline> <
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>,
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline> <
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>,
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline> <
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>,
> Alexander Clemm <[e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>,
> Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail] <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>>, Ron Bonica <[e-mail] <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]
> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Suresh
> Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail] <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>>, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]
> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>
>
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage
> example
>
>
>
> +Jari
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
> Suresh, Jari,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm confused by this bullet point:
>
>
>
> • next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team, call for
> a BOF?
>
>
>
>
>
> Could you please clarify?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I understood there's no WG (and hence no WG coordination nor status), in
> favor of the IAB Program. There cannot be a WG Design Team without a WG. I
> cannot find "design team" or 'BOF" (WG forming or not?) in the minutes of
> eimpact meetings <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>, maybe I missed it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is this an effort parallel to eimpact or a shadow meeting?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Poweff authors,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is Poweff still a Cisco-only effort, as recorded in
> https://youtu.be/m4vpThE5K9c?feature=shared&t=3534 <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>? Verbatim youtube transcript:
>
>
>
>
>
> Many of the um products uh that we have uh mainly in Cisco right we are
> still looking into multivendor and this will be really good for um the
> participants to um provide feedback how this H um standardization of the
> data model might impact in your network equipment but um
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:30 PM Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)
> <mpalmero=[e-mail] <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> We have booked a side meeting in Brisbone, IETF #119
>
> Thursday 9:00 am local time.
>
> Headline: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
>
>
>
>
>
> Please see the agenda that we are proposing:
>
>
>
> • Overview of ongoing sustainability work in IETF (everyone contributes)
>
> • Brief presentation of sustainability insights/poweff updates, incl. look
> at a more concrete example
>
> • Any other short updates?
>
> • next steps? E.g. WG coordination/status, form a WG Design Team, call for
> a BOF?
>
>
>
>
>
> As we would like to leave time to discuss and review **next steps**, for
> the overview we propose not more than 20 min.
>
> As authors from specific drafts, please let me know which draft(s) you
> would like to review, we would like to make sure that we could fit them
> into the 20 min
>
>
>
> Safe travels, and have a nice weekend
>
>
>
> Marisol Palmero, on behalf of the authors of sustainability insights&
> poweff drafts
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> OPSAWG mailing list
>
> [e-mail] <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>