Re: [recipe] Anything going to happen at IETF 75?

Peny Yang <peng.yang.chn@gmail.com> Fri, 08 May 2009 05:24 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.yang.chn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: recipe@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: recipe@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306C73A67B4 for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2009 22:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvH0RqmzzfZb for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2009 22:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f195.google.com (mail-qy0-f195.google.com [209.85.221.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBDA3A67AA for <recipe@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2009 22:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33so1996365qyk.29 for <recipe@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 May 2009 22:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VRngROgZ9I+GQKE0KrYPeDUOj+HFxlzx+y5MDa8Glbc=; b=jiQRl4MkMIoEIBrgr4gpv8K8K4ilydP1CtOW3s+KHQkddSEwWtFyx6wZNNAxMKIRze conKUMtJw6DKrLLLWnLVvs75MgEyIx6BebpUuNX3rsTzedWrJk6wXT5qELtYWAj56AIK JiiqbZYVxs10OkG6n2naxFAugWxvE1UVmaMhM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WT7RFypTmjHn2d8HTUcIKqi67LY0b3NwtFa/7P/vIgbdd3SpbkqF4BGDKKxvWEW4NG Agwv7ZMJwg/a6RjEAImsrFUCUzsDlJVP+u0DaD0idT4skqfqOqDPL31kG1arLeDnZDeR LiEdt9OaI0gvZauC0fVd+dWvXfNJnODvJ7oNE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.85.130 with SMTP id o2mr7008464vcl.80.1241760373188; Thu, 07 May 2009 22:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C61743F4.6B2F5%Quittek@nw.neclab.eu>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0904211403160.12602@sjc-cde-010.cisco.com> <C61743F4.6B2F5%Quittek@nw.neclab.eu>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:26:13 +0800
Message-ID: <4c5c7a6d0905072226l254e0a6yeab0d306ed03357f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peny Yang <peng.yang.chn@gmail.com>
To: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@nw.neclab.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: recipe@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [recipe] Anything going to happen at IETF 75?
X-BeenThere: recipe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RECIPE \(Reducing Energy Consumption with Internet Protocols Exploration\)" <recipe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe>, <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/recipe>
List-Post: <mailto:recipe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe>, <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 05:24:53 -0000

Hi, Juergen:

Thanks for your draft proposals. We are also interested in this field.
Please check my words in line:

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Juergen Quittek <Quittek@nw.neclab.eu>; wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for reminding everybody.
> There is one month left to submit BoF proposals,
> but now seems to be a good time to start working on it.
>
> I would like to draft a proposal, but first we should have rough
> consensus on what would be the subject (and which area it would
> belong to). Please find my proposal at the end of this message.
>
> Summarizing the emails of Stuart and Bruce on this list,
> I see three areas of interest that have been stated yet:
>
>  a. Power state and energy consumption monitoring and control
>  b. Online trading of electric energy and scheduling of energy consumption
>  c. Building networks
>
> a. looks like a classical topic for the OaM area. The list of potential
> work items may include
>  - standardization of means for reporting devices' power state
>    and power consumption, such as, for example the Power MIB referenced
>    in Bruce's email.
>  - standardization of means for remotely controling devices' power
>    states.
> This looks like a classical topic for the OaM area. These work items
> could be handled within the OPSAWG or by a short-lived OaM area WG.
> We could propose such work at a BoF but maybe it would already be
> sufficient to propose it in the OPSAWG.
[Peny] Is the *device* mentioned here end-user devices (such as
air-con) or devices in electrical grid (such as wind power generator)
?

> b. needs more conceptual work. It looks like a great idea to offer
> different energy prices at different times and to schedule/control
> consumption accordingly. It would be highly desirable to have also
> people from energy business contributing to this work.
> If we want to request a BoF on b. we need think about which area we
> would like to go to, APP area or OaM area.
[Peny] In my understanding, b. can cover the directions on scheduling
devices to achieve the most efficient energy-consumption. It's more of
trade-off between performance requirements and energy-consumption.
Maybe it could be in OaM area.


> c. is very ambitious. Here a new set of standards for building
> networks would be developed. Bruce suggestion is setting up a new
> standardization body for this, the BNTF. This goes beyond the
> traditional scope of a BoF, but a BoF might still be a good place
> to discuss this idea.
> My question on this issue is: Would we start such an activity from
> the beginning as an IETF-external standards work or would we rather
> go for an incremental approach, starting from small work items in a.
> to more extended work in b and finally coming to more general work
> with wide coverage of issues in c.?
[Peny] I think maybe we could clarify the issues firstly in RECIPE BoF.

> My proposal would be:
> 1. Let's take a. to the OPSAWG (maybe starting with the Power MIB).
> 2. Let's have a BoF focusing on b., with mentioning a. and presenting
>   c. as long-term vision.
> 3. Let's meanwhile elaborate c. in more detail. Maybe Bruce has done
>   this already, but I miss an overview of the scope of a BNTF and
>   what needs to be done in this area.
[Peny] Agree.

Thanks
BRG
Peny






>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 21.04.09 23:05  "Chris Lonvick" <clonvick@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is anyone planning a BoF (or Bar BoF) for IETF 75 for RECIPE?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> recipe mailing list
>> recipe@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe
>
> _______________________________________________
> recipe mailing list
> recipe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe
>
>