[{"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "<p><a href=\"https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-122-green\">https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-122-green</a></p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:24:42Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "<p>Please contribute to collecting notes and documenting notes</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:24:57Z"}, {"author": "Mahesh Jethanandani", "text": "<p>I removed myself from the queue mostly because of time and also because the other speakers echoed most of the points I was going to mention. </p>\n<p>One suggestion to the authors of the ISAC use case is to look at existing use cases and identify what has not been captured by them. That would go a long way to understand why GREEN should adopt this use case.</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:33:02Z"}, {"author": "Mahesh Jethanandani", "text": "<p>@Marisol, let me be clear. My comments were as a contributor, and so they carry as much weight as a comment from the next person. </p>\n<p>Having said that, it is my understanding that \"embedded energy\" and however it is defined is currently not in-scope of the charter. But I am happy to be corrected.</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:44:57Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "<p>Looking through the stephan draft respective to Mahesh's question on virtualized functions, and while the draft calls this out for mobile networks, I wonder -- in the light of AI -- we need to add edge compute monitoring as a use case?  For example, if a router has the ability to do inferencing on-box based on network data, this can take substantial energy (and such activities should be monitored and possibly conditionally enabled).</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:44:59Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "<p>Hi Joe, yes, that is an interesting consideration.  It would be good to hear what others think (here in the chat, or on the list).</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:46:20Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "<p>I see what you did there, Rob.  I'll post my question.</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:48:54Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "<p>:-)</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:49:02Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "<p>Thanks</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:49:12Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "<p>On the terminology presentation, we should also check with W3C. it was pointed out to the chairs that they already have some terminology in this area that we may want to leverage or consider.</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:56:33Z"}, {"author": "Marisol", "text": "<p>@Mahesh , I agree with your perspective and comments, having said that I also would like to hear the group. To me this is not a heavy weight, and bring good value to the discussions and reference/integration for the actionable insight we are looking at from the metrics. It also contribute a constraint and join effort with the work on going in IVY WG. Also this is a linkage to the business priorities conversations, and the collaboration work involved under the Scope 3 reporting.</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T10:58:51Z"}, {"author": "Marisol", "text": "<p>removing myself from the queue, as Jan just covered. POWEFF as part of OPSA was having a bigger scope on metrics coverage, including Energy Efficiency based on traffic load, but this was modified in favor of philatelist framework to support Energy Consumption metric specific</p>", "time": "2025-03-18T11:20:09Z"}]