green

Summary

The Green Working Group meeting focused on foundational aspects, including use cases, terminology, and architectural components. Discussions revolved around liaison status, adoption of use case documents, virtual interims, and specific proposals like ISAC use case, energy efficiency management use cases, terminology, and frameworks for energy-efficient networking. A key point was whether certain proposals fit within the group's charter and how to progress work in parallel.

Key Discussion Points

Liaison Status: Discussion on the "Hello World" liaison with other groups, particularly W3C regarding overlaps with the Sustainable Web Interest Group. Need to determine the depth of collaboration (epistolary vs. in-depth).
Use Case Document Adoption: Postponed due to limited feedback and specific objections. It's intended as a living document within the working group, not an RFC.
Working Group Structure: Focus on use cases, terminology/metrics, and modeling proposals. Work to proceed in parallel with staggered work last calls.
Virtual Interims: Preference for a common time zone (UTC 2-4pm) for virtual interims.
ISAC Use Case (Carlos Bernardos): Presentation of a proposed use case for Internet Sensing and Communications (ISAC) in smart cities, focusing on energy-aware traffic management. Discussed its relevance to Green, specifically whether it aligned with footprint or handprint perspectives and whether it should be included in the use case document.
Energy Efficiency Management Use Cases (Luis): Discussion on revising the document to focus on use cases and identifying relevant Green aspects. Comments received from Carlos Pinataro and Carlos Bernardos.
Terminology for Energy Efficiency Management (Yu): Presentation on terminology draft, seeking adoption. Discussed existing and new terminology related to energy efficiency, including energy efficiency metrics and power usage effectiveness.
Framework for Energy-Efficient Networking (Kim Wong): Presentation on a framework for energy-efficient networking. Concerns about lack of detail and scope relative to other working groups.
Philatelist and PowerF (Jan): Proposed adoption of draft-tlm-philatelist, draft-pisslm-powerf, and draft-kela-yang-label-tsdb. Philatelist is a general telemetry collection framework, while PowerF builds on it specifically for energy metrics. Discussion focused on whether the broad scope of Philatelist fits within the group's charter and how it relates to existing Yang models.

Decisions and Action Items

Use Case Document: Refine the use case document further and aim for adoption before the next meeting.
Virtual Interims: Schedule virtual interims at a common time (UTC 2-4pm, potentially shifting an hour).
List Activity: Encourage more discussion and reviews on the mailing list.
Framework Documents: Chairs to discuss with authors and other stakeholders (e.g., Mahesh) regarding the scope of the framework documents (Philatelist and PowerF) and their alignment with the charter. Look for feedback from work to be done in the European project, especially in aligning data with the single knowledge graph.
Document Updates: Authors to update their respective drafts based on feedback, paying attention to terminology overlap and the need for detail.

Next Steps

Schedule virtual interims.
Encourage discussion on the mailing list for all presented drafts.
Chairs and authors to coordinate on scope and charter alignment.
Continue model discussion at the next session and update drafts accordingly.

Session Date/Time: 20 Mar 2025 10:00

green

Summary

This session focused on discussing various data models for energy efficiency measurements and management. Presentations covered models for power and efficiency, energy measurements related to streaming, and energy management at device and network levels. The goal was to identify commonalities and determine a base model for the working group. Discussions revolved around the scope of the working group, the granularity of data collection, and the potential for a common architecture.

Key Discussion Points

Philatelist and PowerF: Discussion on the scope of Philatelist (a more generic framework) and its relationship to PowerF (focused on power measurements). The need to decouple the data model work from architectural decisions regarding Philatelist was emphasized.
Streaming Energy Model: Presentation of a data model for energy measurements in streaming devices, distinguishing between global system power and component-level power. Feedback focused on separating streaming-specific metrics from a more general base model.
Energy Management Models: A suite of models including a common energy module, a network inventory module, and a topology energy management module were presented. Focus was on the common module as a building block.
Granularity and Scope: Discussion on the level of granularity for data collection (component, device, network) and whether to include task-specific energy consumption.
Use Cases: The need to align the models with use cases and whether specific use cases require augmentations to a common base model was discussed.
Terminology: The need to align the models with the working group terminology document was mentioned.

Decisions and Action Items

Chairs to review Philatelist in more detail to determine if it is in scope for the working group.
Chairs to set up regular interim meetings on a monthly cadence. These meetings will focus on specific topics, including use cases, terminology, and the base model.
Encourage the working group to review the presented drafts and provide comments on the mailing list.

Next Steps

The chairs will propose a schedule for interim meetings, including potential topics.
Authors of similar drafts (Newman and Tony) will explore commonalities.
The working group will continue discussing the fundamental principles that should guide the development of a base model.