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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

Thanks for your comments and offer to help, it will be greatly received!  We are in the process of setting up the open mailing list.  Once that has been created, and advertised, then I will move discussion on the BOF and WG charter discussion there.

Ack, on whether a BOF is needed or not.  In the past, when I was an AD, I generally favoured chartering WGs directly, e.g., for IOTOPS, IVY, NMOP, but I’ll defer to Mahesh & the IESG to consider which may be the best path here.  Either, way I think that the key part of this work is really defining the charter for that WG.

I’m also in complete agreement with you on a very tightly scoped, short lived, WG.  In particular, I believe that it should be for work that is broadly understood and that can be achieved in a short time frame.

Regards,
Rob


From: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 00:09
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>, Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>, Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] side meeting #119: Power Metrics: concrete usage example
Rob,

One of the challenges we appear to be having is that the working groups that should potentially care about some of the metrics work for instance are busy. I find that somewhat unfortunate, but it may be what it is. The IAB program is not a place for us to standardize protocols or data models, though of course it can be a place to discuss what work is happening in the IETF or is not but should.  So if the WGs like OPSAWG or IVY have little bandwidth for the the work that needs to happen, then new IETF activities should be created for it.

I have two comments to consider though:

1. Sometimes if the work is clear enough but no room in an existing working group, WGs can also created directly. Not sure if this is feasible in this case.

2. I’d be happy to contribute to a BoF personally. But it is *very* important that it be scoped extremely tightly. This is a topic where we can easily attract any level of discussion, and BoF proposals with clear, concrete goals (”add this YANG thing”) succeed, whereas proposals with vague or unclear or debated scopes may not proceed as fast or at all.

Jari


Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]> kirjoitti 26.3.2024 kello 0.48:

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:

a.      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)

b.     Get the initial BOF submission in before 5th May

c.      Refine the BOF proposal based on feedback received, and update by 7th June

d.     14th June, we hear back whether the BOF has been approved for IETF 120

e.      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]> on behalf of Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 12:01
To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) <mpalmero=[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>, Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>, Ali Rezaki (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[e-mail]>, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
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<https://datatracker.ietf.org/program/eimpact/meetings/>, 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? 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]>> 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]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg