Hi,
We have put your draft on the time slot request list for DNSOP Dispatch.
DNSOP Dispatch session can give recommendations on proper venue or
steps forward for a draft that doesn't necessarily belongs to DNSOP.
Best,
-- Benno
On 06/06/2026 20:52, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
we haven't yet started the call for presentations for IETF 126. Feel free to
submit
your proposal when we do. It will be considered along with the other proposal
that we will receive.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
[email protected]
A gentle nudge is always appreciated if I take a little longer to reply.
On 4. 6. 2026, at 9:57, zhuhh11 <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Benno,
I have sent the email to the GREEN WG chairs for some suggestions about the
draft. But I have not received the reponse yet. We are not sure how to deal
with if the draft includes inter-WG area. But we think the similar situations
will be a trend since cross technology is more and more widely used in the
Internet.
IF we have the chance to introduce the draft on the coming 126 meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Huahong
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> 代表 【外部账号】
Benno Overeinder
发送时间: 2026年4月21日 6:45
收件人: zhuhh11 <[email protected]>; DNSOP Working Group <[email protected]>
主题: [DNSOP] Re: Call for adoption: draft-zhu-dnsop-de-eeas-02
Dear Huahong,
According to the process, the DNSOP chairs issue a call for adoption.
Before doing so, we would like to see some discussion take place on the mailing
list and/or during an IETF DNSOP WG meeting to confirm that there is sufficient
interest in the topic within the working group.
So far, we have not seen substantive discussion of the draft on the mailing list. And
there was unfortunately no time available at IETF 125 to present the draft (as noted in
the agenda "time permitted").
I also wonder whether DNSOP is the most appropriate venue for this work, as the
draft introduces a mechanism on top of DNS for energy
(efficiency) management. You may want to consider reaching out to the GREEN WG
chairs as well for their perspective.
Best regards,
-- Benno
for DNSOP chairs
On 20/04/2026 14:49, zhuhh11 wrote:
Dear dnsop WG,
Please review the draft, and give us some advice.
Full draft:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-dnsop-de-eeas/
I would appreciate any further review and feedback from the group.
Best regards,
Huahong
Our thinking on this draft is as follows:
1、We do not have extensive experience in writing a draft. So there may
be
some wrongs about format and content and We will revise them according
the
guidance from the experts. We also hope that interested experts can
collaborate with us to this work.
2、We have considered the SVCB parameters defined in RFC 9460, but
still
prefer to use an independent RR for the following reasons:
a\SVCB includes parameters such as protocol information, which are IT
software-related negotiation items essential for connection setup. In
contrast, we regard energy information as infrastructure information.
b\With the development of AI, energy demand has grown significantly,
and
energy types and deployments have become more diverse. For example,
satellites are equipped with photovoltaic panels and also host MEC systems.
These scenarios require coordinated evolution and consideration of
networks
and data center infrastructure.
c\In addition, environmental advocates have raised relevant requirements.
Therefore, it is optimal for terminals to support Energy-as-a-Service
options.
d\From the perspective of network operators, we hope this RR can
enable
coordination among terminals, networks, and services, rather than
acting
merely as a simple pipe.
d\As services evolve, we believe more operators will participate in
building
the energy Internet, in which DNS plays an important role.
e\For these reasons, we propose using an independent parameter that
can be
requested on demand. This will also reduce issues related to excessive
information volume caused by carrying it together with protocol and
other
parameters.
3、We intend for the term “Energy Efficiency” in the parameter to also
carry energy type information, especially regarding renewable energy.
Environmental advocates show a clear preference for renewable energy
sources. In our view, energy efficiency should include information on
whether the energy is renewable. If the current definition is not
sufficiently accurate, we will consider revising it in subsequent versions.
4、PUE refers to the overall power usage effectiveness of the data center.
A higher value indicates greater energy loss. For instance, liquid
cooling
typically yields a lower PUE than air cooling, and PUE is also closely
related to operational costs. Therefore, data centers with low PUE are
preferred.
EEI is an energy-saving performance indicator for the equipment
itself; a
higher grade indicates better performance. The two metrics are
distinct. Or
can be optional for the service.
5、2.3.4”This representation” is here for wire-format extensibility.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
