[Teas] Re: Call for adoption: draft-many-teas-power-steering-01 (Ends 2026-09-10)

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Oscar, TEAS WG,

I have read the draft and I support its adoption as WG document

IMHO, being able to support a Power Conserving Path Placement Strategy (PCPPS) is a key enhancements to reduce power consumptions when running networks. This works belong to TEAS WG since PCPPS should not only aim at reducing power consumption but also to ensure that the TE constraints are maintained. Moreover, the solution is technology-agnostic and applicable to any network (e.g., packet as well as optical networks)

I have looked at the on-going discussions on the list and I think there are some good comments to address before WG LC but which are not blocking for WG adoption

1) Alignment with Green WG

I agree that this work should be kept aligned with the work on-going in Green WG: IMHO, adopting this drat as a TEAS WG would facilitate this alignment and progressing this document in parallel with other documents in Green WG would be mutually beneficial

For example, during IETF 126 it was stated that this document is aligned with Green WG but surprisingly no Green WG document is referenced

For example, I would have expected the "Sleep Status" to be defined in a Green WG document and referenced by this draft or, at the minimum, to have some text in this document mapping this state to other definitions in Green WG

IMHO, this issue is better addressed by having TEAS and Green WGs working together to achieve this target before WG LC

2) Distributed TE

I have seen a lot of discussion about distributed versus centralized TE with no considerations on hybrid scenarios

After having read the draft, my understanding is that this draft is mainly dealing with distributing PCPPS information though IGP (e.g., IS-IS or OSPF) or EGP (e.g., BGP-LS) and how CSFP can use this information. I have not seen anything really mandating the CSFP to be distributed

Unless I have misunderstood something, I would suggest to smoot the statement in the Introduction saying that "This document focuses on distributed implementations"

3) Efficiency on concentrating traffic on a small set of network resources

IMHO, how good PCPPS can be in concentrating the traffic on a small set of network resources is really implementation-specific and outside the scope of the standardization

I would suggest to reflect that by smoothing a bit the text in the abstract and maybe add some explicit text in the Introduction acknowledging that how good PCPPS can do its task is implementation-specific and outside the scope of the document:

OLD

   PCPPS concentrates traffic onto a small set of network resources.

NEW

   PCPPS aims at concentrating traffic onto a small set of network resources.

My 2 cents

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oscar de Dios via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: giovedì 27 agosto 2026 10:47
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-many-teas-power-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Call for adoption: draft-many-teas-power-steering-01 (Ends 2026-09-
> 10)
> 
> This message starts a teas WG Call for Adoption of:
> draft-many-teas-power-steering-01
> 
> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-09-10
> 
> Abstract:
>    Many networks have a daily utilization pattern.  For example, a
>    network might be busy during the day and less busy at night.
> 
>    If the network is robust, it has enough capacity to satisfy demand
>    during peak hours and excess capacity during non-peak hours.  That
>    excess capacity increases energy costs and environmental impact.
> 
>    This document introduces a Power Conserving Path Placement Strategy
>    (PCPPS).  When possible, PCPPS concentrates traffic onto a small set
>    of network resources.  When traffic is concentrated onto a small set
>    of network resources, other network resources become idle and can be
>    powered down until they are needed again.  This solves the problem of
>    excess capacity during non-peak hours.
> 
> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support
> adoption of this Internet-Draft by the teas WG. Comments to explain your
> preference are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this
> message and include this message in your response.
> 
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be found
> at [3].
> 
> All authors replied to the IPR poll that was carried out as part of the
> preparation for polling for WG adoption and they all claimed that they were
> aware of IPR that applies to this draft and was disclosed according to IETF
> rules. You can find the disclosed IPR in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/7283/.
> 
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-teas-power-steering/
> 
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-teas-power-steering-01.html
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-many-teas-power-steering-01
> 
> In order to avoid any conflict of interest, I will handle this call for adoption
> myself.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>   Oscar