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

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Fri, 15 May 2009 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jvasseur@cisco.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 C91BC3A6A87 for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 23:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ZGjFWwukf-uz for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 23:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B483A6807 for <recipe@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2009 23:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,198,1241395200"; d="scan'208";a="40647581"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2009 06:41:22 +0000
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4F6fMtH032210; Fri, 15 May 2009 08:41:22 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4F6fMg4002970; Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:22 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 15 May 2009 08:41:22 +0200
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8712.cisco.com ([10.55.201.131]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 15 May 2009 08:41:21 +0200
Message-Id: <77ED3284-5876-4D75-B585-B6F711F5A049@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0905110655200.451@sjc-cde-010.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:41:20 +0200
References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0904211403160.12602@sjc-cde-010.cisco.com> <C3282D29-F175-46A9-9E72-ADEC78C03A2F@apple.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0905110655200.451@sjc-cde-010.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2009 06:41:22.0103 (UTC) FILETIME=[290F0C70:01C9D528]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3015; t=1242369682; x=1243233682; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[recipe]=20Anything=20going=20to=20happ en=20at=20IETF=2075? |Sender:=20; bh=p08x8MzqOD5IP+IurQX5nmy9NNjiw9TZHAiP7nj1PCs=; b=w4t366AbLEGY8EpbW+Qr/vGcPIOXAObWjgk7C/qYdfMHTCW3EwuhGIfV1U SoPN/1pbdeaiO47k7NyyH/Cu3nPbKzD27g4ei9eBSeV14DhLPFER4z7X6yge SXFNKgXXjh;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
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, 15 May 2009 06:39:51 -0000

Hi Chris,

I strongly share your analysis.

There is a need for a narrow focus to get a chance to move forward  
with a potential WG. How about trying another ad-hoc meeting during  
IETF-75, with the hope to start collecting input on the scope of such  
work ?

Thanks.

JP.

On May 14, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Chris Lonvick wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>
>> On 21 Apr, 2009, at 14:05, Chris Lonvick wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Is anyone planning a BoF (or Bar BoF) for IETF 75 for RECIPE?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>
>> I think there's a lot of agreement that this is an important area,  
>> but sadly there appears to be little energy in the IETF right now  
>> for actually doing anything. Any thoughts on how we can fix that?
>
> I think that there is energy but not enough focus on a problem that  
> can be handled by IETF-ers.
>
> On the social side, the IETF has handled protocols; the ones that  
> make the Internet work (e.g., BGP), ones that provide transport for  
> application communications (tpc, udp, tls, etc.), and some (few)  
> that directly link to an application (i.e., ftp and telnet).  My  
> personal opinion is that this is because the IETF encompasses the  
> people who understand the problems that need to be solved in this  
> space and therefore can apply themselves to it.  The management of  
> energy from producer to consumer is a very large field of study  
> which has few current touchpoints with the Intenet and with the IP  
> protocol.  With a few exceptions, I just don't think that this group  
> has the background to start poking at the entirety of this. Perhaps  
> we could get something going by scoping some clearly defined  
> projects, and liasing with other SDOs that are closer to energy  
> management who will need some help with the protocols?
>
> Re: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/recipe/current/msg00006.html
> Your posting suggesting areas of investigation for the home.  While  
> I'd like to see something happening there, I'm not seeing any  
> participation on this list from appliance manufacturors (Whirlpool,  
> LG, etc.) nor from the people who make home energy distribution  
> products (outlets, circuit breakers, meters, etc.).  Without those  
> people, I kind'a feel that we're just guessing about what is  
> possible, and that if we produce a specification we'd have a  
> difficult time getting anyone to implement it. (I'd be happy to be  
> proven wrong. :-)
>
>
>>
>> One important step would be to get the makes of the relevant  
>> devices (and chipsets) involved.
>>
>> Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>;
>> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
>> * Internet Architecture Board
>> * www.stuartcheshire.org
>>
>
> I'm not sure where else to go with this at this time.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> recipe mailing list
> recipe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe