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

["Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)" <[e-mail]>]

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.

>  On 3/25/24, 5:09 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" [e-mail]<mailto:[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 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/

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.

> 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.

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><https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-eimpact-02-sessa-chair-slides-01%3e>, 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><https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-eimpact-02/materials/minutes-interim-2024-eimpact-02-202402161500-00%3e>, 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>> on behalf of Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01
To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>>, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]> <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <color:blue; text-decoration:underline>