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

"Juergen Quittek" <> Fri, 24 April 2009 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCAB3A685D for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M4X66+Bl3HgD for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6603D3A63EB for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89C72C0008EB; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:26:14 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOzpju3LScGm; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:26:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716EA2C00030D; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:26:04 +0200 (CEST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:26:04 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="B_3323413492_12304272"; micalg=sha1
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:24:52 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
Thread-Topic: [recipe] Anything going to happen at IETF 75?
Thread-Index: AcnEtiPFPrzHBf4tBESYkv6wHG/yhQ==
From: "Juergen Quittek" <>
To: "Chris Lonvick" <>, <>
Subject: Re: [recipe] Anything going to happen at IETF 75?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RECIPE \(Reducing Energy Consumption with Internet Protocols Exploration\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:24:57 -0000

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
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.

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.

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.?

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.


On 21.04.09 23:05  "Chris Lonvick" <>; wrote:

> Hi,
> Is anyone planning a BoF (or Bar BoF) for IETF 75 for RECIPE?
> Thanks,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> recipe mailing list