RE: PANET side-meeting

Eric, Minqui and Curtis:

+1 on interest.  Whether we get a IETF room or not - I'd like to really chat about this topic.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Osborne (eosborne) [mailto:eosborne@cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 6:53 AM
To: Mingui Zhang; Tony Li; curtis@occnc.com
Cc: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: PANET side-meeting

Will this side meeting be in Orlando?  I'm sceptical of some of the current approaches but am very interested in where they might go.

eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Mingui Zhang
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 2:10 AM
> To: Tony Li; curtis@occnc.com
> Cc: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: PANET side-meeting
> 
> 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 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/
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> >Of Tony Li
> >Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:02 AM
> >To: curtis@occnc.com
> >Cc: Shankar Raman M J; rtgwg@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing
> >community
> >
> >
> >On Feb 7, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >rtgwg mailing list
> >rtgwg@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg