IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps
conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-02

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Colin Perkins ,
    Internet Research Steering Group ,
    draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps@ietf.org,
    irtf-chair@irtf.org,
    jerome.francois@uni.lu,
    nmrg-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-06

The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-06 consistent
with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Challenges and Opportunities
in Management for Green Networking'  as an
Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and
IETF work.

The IESG would also like the IRTF to review the comments in the datatracker
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and
the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-green-ps/

A URL of the reviewed Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps/

The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Colin Perkins ,
    Internet Research Steering Group ,
    draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps@ietf.org,
    irtf-chair@irtf.org,
    jerome.francois@uni.lu,
    nmrg-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-04

The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps-04 consistent
with RFC5742.

The IESG recommends that 'Challenges and Opportunities in Management for
Green Networking'  NOT be published as an
Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the IETF
work done in WG GREEN and recommends not publishing the document at this time.

The IESG would also like the IRTF to review the comments in the datatracker
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and
the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-green-ps/

A URL of the reviewed Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-green-ps/

The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
Upon review, IESG has determined that this document is a good place to start a discussion about energy efficiency and topics related to it. There is some overlap with the work that is going on in GREEN WG around observability and manageability in general, which IESG encourages the authors to bring the work there.

At the same time, the IESG believes that there are topics mentioned in the document if covered in a future piece of work within IRTF, would benefit IETF. These topics include work around the definition and way to quantify sustainability, the definition and a way to quantify what life-cycle management for a product should look like from an energy perspective, and how protocols could be modified to use energy more efficiently.

[Ballot comment]
Upon review, IESG has determined that this document is a good place to start a discussion about energy efficiency and topics related to it. There is some overlap with the work that is going on in GREEN WG around observability and manageability in general, which IESG encourages the authors to bring the work there. At the same time, the IESG believes that there are topics mentioned in the document if covered in a future piece of work, would benefit IETF. These topics include work around the definition and way to quantify sustainability, the definition and a way to quantify what life-cycle management for a product should look like from an energy perspective, and how protocols could be modified to use energy more efficiently.

[Ballot comment]
I quickly browsed through the document, it appears as easy to read and detailed. Thanks for it, I will read it for my education when I have more time ;-)

As Roman wrote, it cannot be published like it is and Roman's proposed text would address our concern.

I also disagree with the current conflict review "publication could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in WG GREEN", i.e., barring Roman's points, this document can be published as it stays in the research/exploration zone without entering the engineering zone, which is for the GREEN WG.

[Ballot comment]
I commend the forward thinking in this IRTF document and the central placement it gives the IETF while exploring research areas that could contribute to realizing “greener” networking.  This document uses language that implies that it is setting the strategic direction of the IETF.  For example, the document uses phrases such as “challenges and opportunities … for IETF-led advances” or “where the IETF can play a role”.  While it might not have been the intent, this language could cause confusion for readers or outside organization, especially if they are more familiar with other standards organizations which publish vision or strategy documents prior to standardization work.  For this reason, publication of the document as-is should be delayed less it disrupts active standardization work in WGs such as GREEN.

I believe this conflict could be remedied with a few simple editorial changes.  For example:

OLD
  The following summarizes some challenges and opportunities that can
  provide the basis for IETF-led advances:
NEW
  The following summarizes some challenges and opportunities that can
  provide the basis for advanced in “greener” networking:

A detailed list of text which should be reviewed follows:

Section 1.3

In this document, we will therefore explore each of those
  vectors in further detail and for each point out specific challenges
  for IETF.

In addition, this document focuses on and attempts to
  articulate specific challenges relating to work that could be
  championed by the IETF to make a difference.

Section 4.1
  we only consider the
  energy cost of running the network, as this is where the IETF can
  play a role.  However, a holistic approach would include into this
  the embedded energy that is included in the networking equipment.
  One aspect for the IETF may be to consider impact of deploying new
  protocols on the rate of obsolescence of the equipment.

Sections 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7
  The following summarizes some challenges and opportunities that can
  provide the basis for IETF-led advances:

[Ballot discuss]
Upon review, IESG has determined that this document is a good place to start a discussion about energy efficiency and topics related to it. There is some overlap with the work that is going on in GREEN WG around observability and manageability in general, which IESG encourages the authors to bring the work there. At the same time, the IESG believes that there are topics mentioned in the document if covered in a future piece of work, would benefit IETF. These topics include work around the definition and way to quantify sustainability, the definition and a way to quantify what life-cycle management for a product should look like from an energy perspective, and how protocols could be modified to use energy more efficiently.

[Ballot comment]
Upon review, IESG has determined that there is significant overlap in the work identified by this draft and what the GREEN WG is chartered to work upon. The authors could de-conflict the two efforts by focusing on efforts such as sustainability, life-cycle management, how protocols can be modified to use energy more efficiently, and other efforts that are not within the scope of the GREEN WG.