| A comment that I would make on this not having skills line of argument, is that about 25 so years ago, very few had security skills and that very few thought about the security aspects of their protocol designs. Then the mandatory security section was introduced and the security area started objecting to protocols that had poor security. Now, I hope that we all think about the security implications of our work.
I don’t know what technique we should apply to sustainability, but I do know that all long journeys start with a first step, often with an incomplete idea of the route and the difficulties.
Stewart Sent from my iPad On 6 Aug 2022, at 06:53, Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Joel, Why IETF does not have the skill set to define extensions to OSPF to be more energy efficient ? Example of such extensions is described in this recent paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.00035.
Thanks Hesham
I can't speak for Fred, but I don't think we as a community even
know what "energy efficient protocol" means. Much less how that
trades off against all the other aspects of protocol design.
We do consider message size and frequency when we design
protocols. We consider those aspects along with lots of others.
if that is "designing energy efficient protocols" then we already
do so. On the other hand, design for issues such as to to
partially wake up a sleeping device is generally outside our remit
and skill set. And is meaningless for many of our devices.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/5/2022 7:18 PM, Hesham ElBakoury
wrote:
Hi Fred,
Do you think IETF engineers have the skill sets
to design energy efficient protocols or enhance existing ones
to be more energy efficient ?
Echoing a
previous post, I’m not sure sustainability is part of our
skill set. If we were to try to forcibly add it, I suspect
we’d get the same level of response security originally got:
“sustainability is not specified in this document”.
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Aug 5, 2022, at 2:26 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps it is time for a new mandatory section in RFCs:
sustainability?
|
