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

Ken Christensen <> Wed, 29 April 2009 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941393A6E11 for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.74
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRqvk3Q42Jrl for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B4F3A6E59 for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (kjc_new []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3TJcL1c009539; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:38:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:54:59 -0400
From: Ken Christensen <>
Organization: University of South Florida
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2009.4.29.192849
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 May 2009 07:01:31 -0700
Cc: Juergen Quittek <>
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:55:34 -0000

Hello Juergen (and all):

I would like to add a few comments on item (a).  The power state MIB 
that Juergen and Bruce discuss is here:

(appeared at IEEE LCN 2008 as a poster paper).  Tables 1 and 2 in the 
paper might be interesting. This is a very preliminary work on the idea 
of exposing power state via SNMP.  What are the MIB variables of 
interest?  That is one important question.  Another question is how to 
access the MIB of a sleeping host (without waking-up the host!). One 
possible direction for this is a proxy.  This requires much more thought.

Exposing the power state is, I think, the first necessary step for 
monitoring and controlling energy use of ICT (and maybe non-ICT as 
well?) equipment.


Ken Christensen
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of South Florida
Phone: (813) 974-4761
Juergen Quittek 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.
> 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.
> Juergen
> 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
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> recipe mailing list