BOF Request Proposal - technology conflicts and overlaps

marisolpalmero / GREEN-bof

Green Metrics BOF proposal for WG Creation

4 stars 4 forks source link

BOF Request Proposal - technology conflicts and overlaps #72

Closed cpignata closed 3 months ago

cpignata commented 3 months ago

Given

The BoF discussion should identify a suite of short-term deliverables aimed at enhancing energy efficiency within networks,

Why the Technology Overlap: include RTGWG, LSR, and do not include IVY?

Also, regarding

Which (if any) modifications to existing protocols or practices are required: Approaches are likely to use Netconf/Restconf and YANG. Proposals to LSR for IGP enhancements for energy-efficient path computation.

Was that discussed as out-of-scope for an Ops not RTG proposal?

billwuqin commented 3 months ago

Based on earlier discussion and AD's guidelines, this proposed BOF is targeted to OPS area rather than routing area, for any routing protocol extension related work can be covered by another linked new BOF in Routing area, we can not boil ocean for the whole problem space. At least in the first phase, make sense?

cpignata commented 3 months ago

Makes sense -- so why is RTG as a conflict and not other Ops WGs?

billwuqin commented 3 months ago

The rationale is first, RTG is not in the scope since GREEN focuses on OPS area, secondly take IPPM, BMWG as examples, they will provide a good foundation or input to GREEN proposed work items while RTG is just consumer of these metrics.

marisolpalmero commented 3 months ago

no need to change proposal for the charter. Closing as per comments

billwuqin commented 3 months ago

Sorry, Carlos, I thought you are referred to Charter proposal, rather than BOF prposal. Regarding your first comments, the answer is OPS area is referred to all WGs in the OPS area including IVY, does this make sense to you? Regarding your second comments, Yes, you are right here is the proposed change: NEW TEXT: " Enhancements to IGPs and PCEP for energy-efficient path computation (not in the OPS WG scope). "

cpignata commented 3 months ago

Thanks, even when responding to a Closed Issue...

If you include WG-level technologies, they you need to include IVY. Explicitly. If you include Area-level, RTG and Ops can be a first approximation but you will need more details.

I suggest

Remove RTGWG, LSR and add IVY from Tech overlap
add "Enhancements to IGPs and PCEP for energy-efficient path computation"
Replace "OPS WG" with "OPSAWG"

And please update the BOF Proposal as it is confusing still.

Lastly, another mis-closed, @marisolpalmero