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

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Thu, 14 May 2009 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@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 DAA6C28C148 for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ygWRdaI8lcTM for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A70028C2CE for <recipe@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,195,1241395200"; d="scan'208";a="185575815"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 May 2009 17:38:00 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4EHc0Dr021743; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:38:00 -0700
Received: from sjc-cde-010.cisco.com (sjc-cde-010.cisco.com [128.107.183.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4EHc0vb004739; Thu, 14 May 2009 17:38:00 GMT
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <C3282D29-F175-46A9-9E72-ADEC78C03A2F@apple.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0905110655200.451@sjc-cde-010.cisco.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0904211403160.12602@sjc-cde-010.cisco.com> <C3282D29-F175-46A9-9E72-ADEC78C03A2F@apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2422; t=1242322680; x=1243186680; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=clonvick@cisco.com; z=From:=20Chris=20Lonvick=20<clonvick@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[recipe]=20Anything=20going=20to=20happ en=20at=20IETF=2075? |Sender:=20; bh=GaqILYsmmVjIOmmznhK4Z3U15J564esKXNJ02XMkb+Q=; b=BwmiY9gnC7mAVoFdVyJs/BN3tleJmkCNEx4Wm4H9o8m+eXgem+cGcHIXb6 D6TeCFpNAwvj6Lf7NNsZpLJv4/nMEQDZM/4RbaYwFZRqTW1lTNmYA9sRqO6r o4p0LAj5J6gJu2kWXZ3BrH2yuR/hVhMvE7LdBLT+CPuFTNiJbfc8A=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=clonvick@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 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: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:37:05 -0000

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