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

[Peny Yang <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is anyone planning a BoF (or Bar BoF) for IETF 75 for RECIPE?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> recipe mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe
>
> _______________________________________________
> recipe mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe
>
>