Re: PANET side-meeting

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
Mingui Zhang writes:
 
> Hi Tony and Curtis,
>  
> Let me retrospect some history to clear up the chaos floating around. 
>  
> On Feb 4th, I organized a conference call among a dozen of guys (from
> operators, vendors and Universities) who are interested in PANET, in
> order to prepare for a side meeting in IETF. There was a rough
> consensus that a side-meeting is a good way to call for interest,
> coordination and contribution to PANET. However, requests was
> _prematurely_ sent out afterwards, without including all the effort
> from the conference attendees. I hope this email can get us back on
> track. So I change its title.

I could find no record of this in a google search.  Nothing that
seemed relevant for "PANET meeting", "PANET conference call", or
"Power Aware Networking" other than IETF chatter and the already
discussed academic papers.  Is there any reference to this meeting?

An closed ad-hoc conference call does not justify a new WG, even an
IRTF WG.

Would you care to say who attended the conference call and whether
anyone took notes that could be shared?

Was this just among the authors of the docs sent to RTGWG?  [If so, it
would seem more like a Huawei internal meeting with a few guests.]

> I believe the most efficient way for us is to play the game according
> to the rule of IETF/IRTF. Therefore, we are trying to find a place to
> accommodate the side-meeting. We should not delve into discussion of
> specific solutions before we make clear the problem scope. A charter
> should be published, which will help us figure out what is the problem
> we are trying to solve. Before that, let me add some pointers of
> drafts from my side. I believe these drafts can also help people to
> figure out the scope of PANET.  Power-Aware Networks (PANET): Problem
> Statement,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-panet-problem-statement/
> Use Cases for Power-Aware Networks,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-panet-use-cases/
> Requirements for Power Aware Network,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-panet-requirement/

The usual way to do this formally in IETF is to request a BOF.
Informally you can ask for a room or just get together at the bar (the
venue of choice for an informal ad hoc BOF a decade or more ago).

> On the 84th IETF rtgwg f2f meeting, there were two presentations
> relevant to greening. I also list them as follows FYI.  A Framework
> and Requirements for Energy Aware Control Planes,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-00, [slides]
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtgwg-3.pptx
> Power-aware Routing and Traffic Engineering: Requirements, Approaches,
> and Issues, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-greennet/,
> [slides]
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtgwg-4.pptx
>  
> Thanks,
> Mingui Zhang
> Huawei Technologies

At IETF, no activity at all on the WG mailing list usually means not
enough interest and therefore no advancement.

I mentioned earlier on the prior thread that I had just quickly read
draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-00 and did not think this work was worth the
IETF (or IRTF, if I can speak up in advance) in its current form.  The
topic might be worth considering, but the work seems to take a naive
approach.  Whether treating interfaces and links as a black box and
using routing provides any appreciable gain in real networks remains
to be proven.

These documents are trying to write requirements, build a framework,
and specify protocols, all based on unproven assertions.  

If the work goes to IRTF, the first order of business must be to
provide compelling proof or at least compelling argument that a
specific approach will have benefit in *real* networks, not hypothetic
networks, and not real topologies with a hypothetic network
architecture (ie: choice of type of equipment and build out).

Curtis


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > Tony Li
> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:02 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing
> > community
> >  
> >  
> > On Feb 7, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >  
> > > I don't think this is even material ready for IRTF consideration, but
> > > that is up to Tony and IRTF to decide.
> >  
> >  
> > As always, the IRTF does not require well-formed ideas as a
> > pre-requisite for starting work.  Instead, there needs to be a clear
> > problem statement (i.e., a charter) and a sufficient group of serious
> > researchers who are committed to following through in a committed
> > manner.
> >  
> > Note that it is, by definition, research.  It is expected to have a
> > non-trivial likelihood of failure.
> >  
> > Regards,
> > Tony