Getting Ready for Energy-Efficient Networking
charter-ietf-green-00-07

[Ballot comment]
This basically looks fine, although I have several nits about mixed-up uses of “efficient” versus “efficiency” and Random Capitalization of Stuff.

“Defining use cases for managing Energy Efficiency Networks.”

Should be “energy efficient networks”, right? And should be in lower-case, too.

“Defining terms and definitions related to energy efficient metrics.”

And this should be “energy efficiency metrics”.

“Standard Track definitions of YANG data models at the component level, device level, and network level for energy efficiency network management”

I *think* this one should be “efficient” but it kind of depends on what you’re trying to say. Please evaluate it, anyway.

“managing Energy Efficient Networks”

Lower case “energy efficient networks”.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for revising the text based on my earlier feedback.

** Per "The GREEN Working Group will also liaise with other SDOs on benchmarking methodologies for collaboration and consultation", what does the "for collaboration or consultation" mean?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my previous comments even if `For other related WGs, I suggest adding TVR and INTAREA (as there is an I-D about ICMP sending some consumption data).` is probably still an open issue.

Changed charter milestone "Develop a framework for incremental deployment of energy-aware tools management", set description to "Adopt a framework for energy efficient monitoring, capability discovery, and management within a network domain."

Changed charter milestone "Publish YANG models for operational energy use and efficiency-related metrics that might be leveraged in other work to improve energy efficiency within a network", set description to "Adopt YANG models to enable measuring, reporting, and management of energy usage at a component, device and network level.", removed draft-li-ivy-power from milestone

Changed charter milestone "Develop and agree upon a standardized set of terminologies and definitions related to energy use and efficiency in networking", set description to "Adopt a standardized set of terminologies and definitions related to energy efficient metrics."

[Ballot comment]
What does it mean to “curate” requirements? According to my understanding of “curation“, it excludes doing original work, covering only the process of picking and choosing from existing work. Perhaps,

OLD:
Curating updated requirements for the management of energy-efficient networks.

NEW:
Updating requirements for the management of energy-efficient networks.

[Ballot comment]
Is the "Guidance covering ..." paragraph meant to describe a possible output of this working group, or a desirable input to this working group?

[Ballot comment]
I can get from the charter text that in the preparation of this charter there has been lots of discussion on DOs and DON'Ts :-).

Some comments to improve the charter text further -

- I think charter text on deliverables are more quantitative than what are in the milestones. I will suggest the milestones are replaced by the deliverables and remove deliverables from the charter, or at least update the milestone description to reflect what is in the deliverables.

- I don't undersand the meaning of "multi-level framework", will there be multiple but connected frameworks? Please explain or rephrase.

- Dependencies and liaisons :

      - It is now missing where the dependencies are and where the wg will liaise
     
      - The frist two bullets of the list can be combined into one, they are anywas IETF WGs
     
      - the 4th bullet now repeats "The WG will collaborate with" that part should be removed. And if there is any special meaning behind not "closely" collaborte, then this bullet should not be in this list.

[Ballot comment]
I can get from the charter text that in the preparation of this charter there has been lots of discussion on DOs and DON'Ts :-).

Some comments to improve the charter text further -

- I think charter text on deliverables are more quantitative than what are in the milestones. I will suggest the milestones are replaced by the deliverables and remove deliverables from the charter, or at least update the milestone description to reflect what is in the deliverables.
- I don't undersand the meaning of "multi-level framework", will there be multiple but connected frameworks? Please explain or rephrase.
- Dependencies and liaisons :
      - It is now missing where the dependencies are and where the wg will liaise
     
      - The frist two bullets of the list can be combined into one, they are anywas IETF WGs
     
      - the 4th bullet now repeats "The WG will collaborate with" that part should be removed. And if there is any special meaning behind not "closely" collaborte, then this bullet should not be in this list.

[Ballot comment]
I can get from the charter text that in the preparation of this charter there has been lots of discussion on DOs and DON'Ts :-).

Some comments to improve the charter text further -

- I think charter text on deliverables are more quantitative than what are in the milestones. I will suggest the milestones are replaced by the deliverables and remove deliverables from the charter, or at least update the milestone description to reflect what is in the deliverables.
- I don't undersand the meaning of "multi-level framework", will there be multiple but connected frameworks? Please explain or rephrase.
- Dependencies and liaisons :
      - It is now missing where the dependencies are and where the wg will liaise
      - The frist two bullets of the list can be combined into one, they are anywas IETF WGs
      - the 4th bullet now repeats "The WG will collaborate with" that part should be removed. And if there is any special meaning behind not "closely" collaborte, then this bullet should not be in this list.

[Ballot comment]
Let's indeed get this WG created ASAP but I am afraid that the charter could be made crisper (i.e., I won't repeat some Roman's comments).

My main concern is that the term 'control' is used in the charter but nothing is said beyond monitoring, it even writes that `Routing protocols and algorithms` are out of scope. Suggest removing 'control' from the charter.

For other related WGs, I suggest adding TVR and INTAREA (as there is an I-D about ICMP sending some consumption data).

Liaison to ETSI & ITU are indeed important but https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/ does not have any ? How will the WG proceed ? Is the liaison process already initiated by the IAB to the relevant parts of ETSI & ITU ?

[Ballot comment]
** Per Goal and Scope

-- “The GREEN Working Group is chartered to explore use cases and derive requirements for identifying and characterizing energy efficiency metrics, methods related to energy consumption of network devices, and optimizing energy efficiency across the network.”

This text says the WG will “explore use cases and derive requirements”.  It then provides a list of things it will concentrate on to include publishing YANG models.  In what way are YANG models either use cases or requirements?

-- “Developing or selecting a multi-level framework for energy efficiency monitoring, energy efficiency capability discovery, and control within a network domain”

What is a “multi-level framework”?  Could this be more clearly aligned with the work items? 

-- “Initially, the GREEN Working Group is expected to focus on simple foundational building blocks for new energy efficiency strategies for operators, striving to illustrate industry implementation and adoption of the working group output before potentially considering more complex aspects of energy efficient networks in a future charter.”

In what way does this text scope the activities of the WG?  Is there some notion of an adoption requirement before so additional tranche of work is done?  What set of work is the “simple foundational building blocks”?

** Per Dependencies and Liaisons:

-- “The WG will collaborate with industry stakeholders and regulatory bodies to ensure alignment with current and future regulatory frameworks”

What regulatory bodies?  What current regulatory frameworks would the solutions produced by this WG need to meet?

** Per the milestones:

-- “Develop a framework for incremental deployment of energy-aware tools management”
-- “Develop and agree upon a standardized set of terminologies and definitions related to energy use and efficiency in networking”

How will one know that one has developed the above?  Can this be restated in the form of a document adoption, WGLC or sending something to the IESG.

Added charter milestone "Publish YANG models for operational energy use and efficiency-related metrics that might be leveraged in other work to improve energy efficiency within a network", due December 2025