| RFC 9547 | E-Impact Workshop Report | February 2024 |
| Arkko, et al. | Informational | [Page] |
Internet communications and applications have both environmental costs and benefits. The IAB ran an online workshop in December 2022 to explore and understand these impacts.¶
The role of the workshop was to discuss the impacts and theevolving industry needs, and to identify areas for improvementsand future work. A key goal of the workshop was to call furtherattention to the topic and bring together a diverse stakeholdercommunity to discuss these issues.¶
Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB views and positions.¶
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9547.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.¶
The IAB ran an online workshop in December 2022 to exploreand understand the environmental impacts of the Internet.¶
The context for the workshop was that Internet communications and applications have both environmental costs and benefits. In thepositive direction, they can reduce the environmental impact of oursociety, for instance, by allowing virtual interaction to replacephysical travel. On the other hand, the Internet can equally well act as anenabler for increasing physical goods consumption, for instance, by facilitating commerce.¶
Beyond the effects associated with its use, Internet applications donot come for free either. The Internet runs on systems that requireenergy and raw materials to manufacture and operate. While theenvironmental benefits of the Internet may certainly outweigh this useof resources in many cases, it is incumbent on the Internet industryto ensure that this use of resources is minimized and optimized. Inmany cases, this is already an economic necessity due to operationalcosts. And because many consumers, businesses, and civil societiescare deeply about the environmental impact of the services andtechnologies they use, there is also a clear demand for providingInternet services with minimal environmental impact.¶
The role of the workshop was to discuss the Internet's environmentalimpact and the evolving industry needs, and to identifyareas for improvements and future work. A key goal of the workshop wasto call further attention to the topic and bring together a diversestakeholder community to discuss these issues. This report summarizesthe workshop inputs and discussions.¶
The workshop drew many position paper submissions. Of these, 26 wereaccepted and published to stimulate discussion. There were activediscussions both in the meeting and on the workshop mailing list with73 participants altogether.¶
Perhaps the main overriding observation is how much interestand urgency there is on this topic, among engineers, researchers, andbusinesses.¶
The workshop discussions and conclusions are covered inSection 3.The position papers and links to recordings of workshop sessions canbe found at<https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/e-impact/>. Presentations and related materials from the workshop are available from the IETF Datatracker<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/eimpactws/meetings/>.¶
After the workshop, the IETF will continue to discuss general topics and specific proposals on a new mailing list, the e-impact list (e-impact@ietf.org). You can subscribeto this list at<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact>.¶
The IETF is discussing improvements for some specific situations, such as the Time-Variant Routing (TVR) proposal, which can help optimize connectivity with systems that are periodically on or reachable (such as satellites). We expect moreproposals in the future.¶
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet architecture. This long-term planning function of the IAB is complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).¶
Furthermore, the content of this report comes from presentations given by workshop participants and notes taken during the discussions, without interpretation or validation. Thus, the content of this report follows the flow and dialog of the workshop and documents a few next steps and actions, but it does not attempt to determine or record consensus on these.¶
Environmental impact assessments and improvements are broad topics,ranging from technical questions to economics, business decisions, andpolicies.¶
The technical, standards, and research communities can helpensure that we have a sufficient understanding of the environmentalimpact of the Internet and its applications. They can also help todesign the right tools to continue to build and improve all aspects ofthe Internet, such as addressing new functional needs, easing ofoperations, improving performance and/or efficiency, or reducingenvironmental impacts in other ways.¶
The following topics were expected to be discussed at the workshop:¶
The direct environmental impacts of the Internet, including but notlimited to energy usage by Internet systems themselves (the networkequipment along with the associated power and coolinginfrastructure), energy usage of the relevant end-user devices,resources needed for manufacturing the associated devices, or theenvironmental impacts throughout the life cycle of Internetsystems. This included discussion about the breakdown of thoseimpacts across different system components and operations andpredictions about the potential future trends for these impactsbased on changed usage patterns and emerging technologies.¶
The indirect environmental impacts of the Internet,i.e., its effects on society through enabling communications,virtual services, or global commerce.¶
Sharing information about relevant measurement metrics and data andidentifying the need for additional metrics or measurements.¶
The need for improvements or newassociated functionality.¶
Sharing information about the societal, business, and regulatorysituation to help identify areas of opportunity.¶
Identifying areas where further technical work would be most impactful.¶
Specific improvement proposals.¶
Past work in the IETF, IRTF, and IAB in this area andthe status of such work.¶
Observed user behaviors as they relate toenvironmental impacts.¶
We expected the workshop discussions to connect analysis of the issues(e.g., scale of energy consumption or carbon footprint) to industryneeds (e.g., deployment opportunities) and solutions.¶
Business and societal policy questions were in scope only insofar asthey informed the workshop participants about the context we are in, butwhat those policies should be was not for the workshop to decide oreven extensively discuss. The scope also excluded how the technicalcommunity works and meets, such as the question of in-person or hybridmeetings (although it should be noted that the workshop itself wasrun as an online meeting).¶
The IAB discussed a potential workshop in this area during its May2022 retreat. A call for position papers went out in August2022. Position papers were to be submitted by end of October, adeadline that was later extended by one week.¶
As noted, the workshop itself was run as an online meeting, with fourhalf-day sessions complemented by email discussions and theposition papers submitted by the participants.¶
All in all, 73 people participated in at least one session in theworkshop. Participation was by invitation only, based on the positionpaper submissions.¶
Every submission was read by at least three members of the programcommittee, and acceptance decisions were communicated back to theauthors. Review comments were provided to authors for information,and some of the papers were revised before the workshop.¶
The program committee decided that due to interest and differing areasof expertise, all co-authors were to be invited; most of themattended. The program committee also invited a handful of additionalparticipants that were seen as providing valuableinput. Similarly, as has been done in previous IAB workshops, the programcommittee members and members of the IAB and IESG were offered anopportunity to participate, even in cases where they did not submit aposition paper.¶
The IETF Secretariat and communications staff provided practicalsupport during the process, sending announcements, maintaining theworkshop web page with position papers, setting up mailing lists,tracking submissions, helping with blog article submissions, and soon.¶
The meeting part of the workshop was divided into four sessions:¶
The first session was about the big picture and relationshipsbetween different aspects of sustainability (seeSection 3.1).¶
The second session focused on what we know and do not know and howwe can measure environmental impacts (seeSection 3.2).¶
The third session was about potential improvements (seeSection 3.3).¶
The final fourth session was about conclusions and next steps (seeSection 3.4).¶
This session was about the big picture and how the Internetinfluences the rest of the society. We also spoke about the goals ofthe workshop.¶
The session began with a discussion about what is overall involved inthis topic. We also looked at how the IETF has approachedthis topic in the past.¶
The discussions also expressed the urgency of action and theimportance of continuous improvement, i.e., an incremental change every yearis needed for larger savings at the end of the decade. We continued totalk about the need to recognize how climate change impacts differentcommunities in the world, often unfairly. Finally, we focused on theneed to be aware of carbon footprint rather than pure energyconsumption -- carbon intensity of energy sources varies.¶
The starting observation from this session was that the issue is muchbigger than Internet technology alone. The issue influences all parts ofsociety, even matters such as (in)equality, externalized costs,and justice. Another key observation was that improvements come inmany forms; there is no silver bullet. The opportunity to bringpeople with different backgrounds together helped us see how weapproach the topic from different angles -- none of them wrong, butalso none of them are the sole angle to focus on either. Only the combinedeffects of complementary efforts can provide the required level of changes.¶
Some of the useful tools for approaching the issue of course included technical solutions but also solidarity, aiming for sufficiency, andawareness. It is important to not stand still waiting for the perfectsolution. Renewable energy and carbon awareness were seen as a part ofthe solution but not sufficient by themselves.¶
As an example demonstration of the diversity of angles andimprovements relating to environmental issues, the figure below classifies the areas that workshop position papers fell on:¶
+---- Actors & organizations | +---- Avoidance +---- Benefits to other fields | | +---- User behavior +---- Society, awareness, & | | justice +---- Implementation | |Workshop -+- Improvements ------------------+ | | | Understanding & | +---- Data plane +---- Measurements | | | Protocols --+---- Routing | | +---- Energy +---- Edge cloud | | +---- Carbon +---- Mobile | +---- Metrics | +---- Other
Some of the goals for the IETF should include:¶
Connecting the IETF with others. Given that the issue is broad, it isdifficult for one Standards Development Organization (SDO) alone to make a significantimpact or even have the full picture. Working in collaboration withothers is necessary, and understanding the situation beyondtechnology will be needed.¶
Continuous improvement. It is important that the IETF (among others)set itself on a continuous improvement cycle. No single improvementwill change the overall situation sufficiently, but over a longerperiod of time, even smaller changes every year will result inlarger improvements.¶
Finding the right targets for improvements in the Internet. Theseshould perhaps not be solely defined by larger speeds or biggercapacity but rather increased usefulness to society and decliningemissions from the Information and Communications Technology (ICT)sector.¶
Specifying what research needs to be done, i.e., where additionalknowledge would allow us to find better improvements. For instance,not enough is known about environmental impacts beyond energy, suchas natural resources used for manufacturing or the use ofwater. Carbon awareness and measurements across domains are alsopoorly understood today. And business model impacts -- such as therole of advertising on the Internet's carbon footprint -- deserve more study.¶
The second session focused on what we know and do not know and how wecan measure environmental impacts.¶
The initial presentation focused on narrowing downthe lower and upper limits of the energy use of the Internetand putting some common but erroneous claims into context. Therewas also discussion regarding the energy consumption of the ICT sectorand how it compares to some other selected industries, such asaviation.¶
Dwelling deeper into the energy consumption and the carbonfootprint of the ICT sector, there was discussion regarding how theimpact was split amongst the networks, data centers, and user devices(with the user devices appearing to contribute to the largest fractionof impact). Also, while a lot of the energy-consumption-related studiesand discussions have been focused on data centers, some studiessuggested that data center energy usage is still a small fraction ofenergy use as compared to residential and commercial buildings.¶
There were also further discussions during both the presentations and inthe hallway chats regarding the press and media coverage of the potentialenvironment technologies. The overall sense of the participants seemed tobe that there was a lot of sensational headlines, but they were not reallybacked by measurements done by the industry and academia and were fraughtwith errors. Some of these media reports were off by quite a bit, sometimeseven by an order of magnitude (e.g., confusing MBps vs. Mbps in calculations).The potential harm of having widely circulating misinformation was noted;it can hinder realistic efforts to reduce carbon emissions.¶
In the rest of the session, we looked at bothadditional data collected from the operators as well as factors that --depending on circumstances -- may drive energy consumption. For instance, theseinclude peak capacity and energy proportionality.¶
If energy consumption is minimally affected by an offered load, the ratio ofpeak capacity to typical usage becomes a critical factor in energyconsumption. On the other hand, systems with energy proportionalityscale their resource and energy consumption more dynamically based onthe offered load.The lack of energy proportionality in many parts of the networkinfrastructure was noted, along with the potential gains if itcan be improved.¶
There were also observations that showed that the energyconsumption grew as a step function when the peak capacity wasreached (even instantaneously), and additional capacity was built up byperforming network upgrades to handle these new peaks. This resultedin an overall higher baseline energy consumption, even when the averagedemand did not change that much. Thus, the ability to shift load toreduce peak demand was highlighted as a potential way to delayincreases in consumption when energy proportionality is lacking.¶
The third session was about potential improvements.¶
As noted earlier, there are many different types of improvements. Inthe discussion, we focused mostly on protocol aspects and looked atmetrics, telemetry, routing, multicast, and data encoding formats.¶
The two initial presentations focused on metrics and telemetry withthe premise that visibility is a very important first step(paraphrasing Peter Drucker's mantra of "You cannot improve what youdon't measure"). There was a discussion of the scopes of emissions,and it seemed that, from a networking vendor perspective, whiledirectly controlled emissions and emissions from purchased energy areeasily measurable, emissions from across the entire value chain can bemuch larger. Thus, it seemed important that networking vendors puteffort into helping their customers measure and mitigate theirenvironmental impact as well. The need for standardized metrics wasvery clear, as it helps avoid proprietary, redundant, and evencontradictory metrics across vendors.¶
The initial and the near-term focus was related to metrics and techniquesrelated to energy consumption of the networking devices themselves, whilethe longer term focus can go into topics much further removed from the IETFcircular design, such as packaging, in order to form a more holistic picture.The overall feeling was that the topics of metrics, telemetry, and managementare quite specific and could be targets to be worked on in the IETF in the nearterm.¶
The next part of the discussion highlighted the need to understand thetrade-offs involved in changing forwarding decisions -- such asincreased jitter and stretch. Jitter is about delay fluctuationbetween packets in a stream[RFC4689]. Stretch is defined as thedifference between the absolute shortest path traffic could takethrough the network and the path the traffic actually takes[RFC7980]. Impacts on jitter and stretch point to the need forcareful design and analysis of improvements from a system perspectiveto ensure that the intended effect is indeed reached across the entiresystem and is not only a local optimum.¶
We also talked about the potentially significant impact, providedthe network exhibits energy proportionality, of usingefficient binary formats instead of textual representations whencarrying data in protocols. This is something that can be adopted relativelyeasily in new protocols as they are developed. Indeed, somerecently finished protocols, such as HTTP/2, have already chosen to usethis technique[RFC9113]. General-purpose binary formats, such asConcise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)[RFC8949], are alsoavailable for use.¶
There were also some interesting discussions regarding the use ofmulticast and whether it would help or hurt on the energy efficiencyof communications. There were some studies and simulations that showedthe potential gains to be had, but they were to be balanced against some ofthe well-known barriers to deployment of multicast. We also heard froma leading Content Delivery Network (CDN) operator regarding theirviews on multicast and how it relates to media usage and consumptionmodels. The potential negative effects of multicast in wireless and constrainednetworks were also discussed in hallway conversations. Overall, the conclusion was that the use of multicast can potentially provide some savings but only in some specific scenarios.¶
For all improvements, the importance of metrics was frequently highlighted to ensure changes lead to a meaningful reduction in the overall carbon footprint of systems.¶
The fourth and final session was about conclusions and next steps. Thissection highlights some of these conclusions.¶
While only a few things are easy, the road ahead for makingimprovements seems clear: we need to continue to improve ourunderstanding of the environmental impact and have a continuous cycleof improvements that lead not just to better energy efficiency but toreduced overall carbon emissions. The IETF can play an important partin this process, but of course there are other aspects beyondprotocols.¶
On understanding our environmental impact, the first step is betterawareness of sustainability issues in general, which helps usbetter understand where our issues are. The second step is willingnessto understand in detail what the causes and relationships are within ourissues. What parts, components, or behaviors in the network causewhat kinds of impacts? An overall drive in the society to report and improveenvironmental impacts can be helpful in creating a willingness to getto this information.¶
On establishing a continuous cycle of improvements, the ability tounderstand where we are, making improvements, and then seeing theimpact of those improvements is of course central. But obviously the keyquestions are what are the potential improvements and how can weaccelerate them? It should be noted that quick, large changes are notlikely. But a continuous stream of smaller changes can create a largeimpact over a longer period of time.¶
One of the key realizations from this workshop was that the problem to be solvedis very large and complex; therefore, there is no single solution that fixes everything.There are some solutions that could help in the near term and others thatwould only show benefits over longer periods, but they are both necessary.¶
One further challenge is that due to the size and complexity of the problem, there are likely varying opinions on what Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) needto be measured and improved.¶
In looking at potential improvements, it is essential that anyassociated trade-offs be understood (note that not all improvementsdo indeed entail a trade-off).¶
Importantly, the role of the Internet in improving other areas of societymust not be diminished. Understanding the costs and benefits requirestaking a holistic view of energy consumption, focusing not just on thecarbon footprint of the Internet but of the broader systems in which itis used. For instance,discussion in session three revealed how some changes might impactlatency and jitter. Given that these characteristics are importantfactors in how virtual meetings are perceived by potential participants,it is important that the performance of networks satisfy theseparticipants at a level such that they are willing to use them overother potentially more environmentally harmful methods, such astravel. Focusing solely on the carbon footprint of the Internet, orsolely on the carbon footprint of travel, risks missing the biggerpicture potential savings.¶
Note that, while shifting to virtual meetings is a common example of how the carbon footprint could be decreased, it is important to consider different use cases, some of which may not be as obvious to us human users as meetings are. Improvements may bring different oreven larger impacts in other situations, e.g., Internet-connectedelectronics might benefit from different characteristics than humanusers, e.g., with regards to support for intermittent connectivity.¶
The relationships between different system components and the impactof various detailed design choices in networks are not alwaysapparent. A local change in one node may have an impact in othernodes. When considering environmental sustainability, in most cases,the overall system impact is what counts more than local impacts. Ofcourse, other factors, such as device battery life and availability ofpower, may result in other preferences, such as optimizing for low-power usage of end-user devices, even at the cost of increaseselsewhere.¶
In terms of useful tools for building improvements, the following werehighlighted in discussions:¶
Measures beyond protocol design, such as implementations or renewableenergy use. Not everything is about protocols.¶
Metrics, measurements, and data are very beneficial. Carbon-awaremetrics in particular would be very useful. All additionalinformation makes us more aware of what the environmental impactsare, and it also enables optimization, adjustments based on Artificial Intelligence (AI),carbon-directed computing and networking tools, and so on.¶
It would be beneficial to be able to provide various systems a moredynamic ability to slow down and sleep. Awareness of energyavailability and type would also allow us to employ time and placeshifting for reducing carbon impacts.¶
When we design systems, paying attention to the used data formatsmay pay off significantly, as argued in[Moran].¶
There's a new possible opportunity for deploying multicast as well[Navarre].¶
Designing systems for energy-constrained situations may actuallymake the resulting systems work well in several environments.¶
The workshop discussed a number of possible actions. These actions arenot about how to take specific technical solutions forward but ratherabout how to discuss the topic going forward or what technical areasto focus on:¶
We need to continue the discussion -- not all questions are answered. Additional discussion within the IETF will be needed. Continuing to connect the IETF with others in society and other SDOs around this topic is also useful.¶
It is useful to find a role and a scope for IETF work in thisarea. The IETF will not develop alternative energy sources, work onsocial issues, or have detailed discussions about implementationstrategies or electronics design. However, the IETF has a role inmeasurement mechanisms, protocol design, and standards -- but ofcourse, activities in this role need to be aware of other aspects,such as implementation strategies.¶
Increase our understanding of the environmental impacts ofInternet technologies. One discussion topic that aroseduring the workshop was whether each new RFC shoulddedicate a section to discuss these impacts. No conclusionwas drawn about the way to document these in RFCs, but it is clearthat the IETF community will need to understand the environmentalissues better. (Perhaps in addition to learning about the actualissues, guidelines for analyzing protocols with regards to theirimpacts could be useful.)¶
IETF activities on specific technologies are already ongoing or starting; for example, metrics are being discussed in the Network Management Research Group[NMRG], the Operations and Management Area Working Group[OPSAWG], and the new Time-Variant Routing Working Group[TVRWG]. It may also beuseful to start with the low-hanging fruits, such as:¶
Help initiate research activities that address some of the issues,such as broader gathering and sharing of measurement data, analysis of this data, and examination of business-related issues, such as how peering or advertising impacts sustainability. In addition,there may be a need to look at research for specific areas ofimprovements that are promising but not ready for standardsdiscussion.¶
In summary, the goals that the IETF should have include:¶
Full understanding of the Internet's environmental impact.¶
Continuous improvement of our technology.¶
Launching research-relevant activities.¶
To support these goals, the IAB has created the e-impact program[E-IMPACT] as a venue for further discussions concerning environmental impacts and sustainability of Internet technology.¶
The organizers received generally positive feedback about the workshop.¶
One practical issue from the organizer's point of view was that, due tothe extension of the deadline, the final submissions and paper reviewscollided in part with the IETF 115 meeting. This led to it being verydifficult for the program committee and practical organization staffto find time for the activity. We recommend avoiding such collisionsin the future.¶
The workshop itself did not address specific security topics. Ofcourse, individual changes in Internet technology or operations thatinfluence environmental impacts may also influence securityaspects. These need to be looked at for every proposed change.¶
Such influence on security may come in different forms. For instance:¶
A mechanism that makes energy consumption informationavailable may be susceptible to tampering or providing falseinformation. For example, in[McDaniel], the author argues that economics andhistory show that different players will attempt to cheat if abenefit can be accrued by doing so, e.g., by misreporting. As aresult, sustainability measures and systems must be modeled assystems under threat.¶
A mechanism that allows control of network elements for optimizationpurposes may be misused to cause denial-of-service or other types ofattacks.¶
Avoiding the use of crypto assets where other mechanisms suffice.¶
Streamlining what data is sent may improve privacy if less informationis shared.¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
The following position papers were submitted to the workshop:¶
Chris Adams, Stefano Salsano, Hesham ElBakoury: "Extending IPv6 to support Carbon Aware Networking"[Adams]¶
Per Anderson, Suresh Krishnan, Jan Lindblad, Snezana Mitrovic, Marisol Palmero, Esther Roure, Gonzalo Salgueiro: "Sustainability Telemetry"[Anderson]¶
Jari Arkko, Nina Lövehagen, Pernilla Bergmark: "Environmental Impacts of the Internet: Scope, Improvements, and Challenges"[Arkko]¶
R. Bolla, R. Bruschi, F. Davoli, C. Lombardo, Beatrice Siccardi: "6Green: Green Technologies for 5/6G Service-Based Architectures"[Bolla]¶
Alexander Clemm, Lijun Dong, Greg Mirsky, Laurent Ciavaglia, Jeff Tantsura, Marie-Paule Odini: "Green Networking Metrics"[ClemmA]¶
Alexander Clemm, Cedric Westphal, Jeff Tantsura, Laurent Ciavaglia, Marie-Paule Odini, Michael Welzl: "Challenges and Opportunities in Green Networking"[ClemmB]¶
Toerless Eckert, Mohamed Boucadair, Pascal Thubert, Jeff Tantsura: "IETF and Energy - An Overview"[Eckert]¶
Greening of Streaming: "Tune In. Turn On. Cut Back. Finding the optimal streaming 'default' mode to increase energy efficiency, shift consumer expectations, and safeguard choice"[GOS]¶
Romain Jacob: "Towards a power-proportional Internet"[Jacob]¶
Fieke Jansen and Maya Richman: "Environment, internet infrastructure, and digital rights"[Jansen]¶
Michael King, Suresh Krishnan, Carlos Pignataro, Pascal Thubert, Eric Voit: "On Principles for a Sustainability Stack"[King]¶
Suresh Krishnan, Carlos Pignataro: "Sustainability considerations for networking equipment"[Krishnan]¶
Vesna Manojlovic: "Internet Infrastructure and Climate Justice"[Manojlovic]¶
Mike Mattera: "Understanding the Full Emissions Impact from Internet Traffic"[Mattera]¶
John Preuß Mattsson: "Environmental Impact of Crypto-Assets"[Mattsson]¶
Brendan Moran, Henk Birkholz, Carsten Bormann: "CBOR is Greener than JSON"[Moran]¶
Louis Navarre, Franoçis Michel, Olivier Bonaventure: "It Is Time to Reconsider Multicast"[Navarre]¶
Bruce Nordman: "Applying Internet Architecture to Energy Systems"[Nordman]¶
Alvaro Retana, Russ White, Manuel Paul: "A Framework and Requirements for Energy Aware Control Planes"[Retana]¶
Shayna Robinson, Remy Hellstern, Mariana Diaz: "Sea Change: Prioritizing the Environment in Internet Architecture"[Robinson]¶
Daniel Schien, Paul Shabajee, Chris Preist: "Rethinking Allocation in High-Baseload Systems: A Demand-Proportional Network Electricity Intensity Metric"[Schien]¶
Eve M. Schooler, Rick Taylor, Noa Zilberman, Robert Soulé, Dawn Nafus, Rajit Manohar, Uri Cummings: "A Perspective on Carbon-aware Networking"[Schooler]¶
Selome Kostentinos Tesfatsion, Xuejun Cai, Arif Ahmed: "End-to-end Energy Efficiency at Service-level in Edge Cloud"[Kostentinos]¶
Wim Vanderbauwhede: "Frugal Computing"[Vanderbauwhede]¶
Michael Welzl, Ozgu Alay, Peyman Teymoori, Safiqul Islam: "Reducing Green House Gas Emissions With Congestion Control"[Welzl]¶
The program committee members were:¶
Jari Arkko, Ericsson (program committee co-chair)¶
Lars Eggert, Netapp (program committee co-chair)¶
Luis M. Contreras, Telefónica¶
Toerless Eckert, Futurewei¶
Martin Flack, Akamai¶
Mike Mattera, Akamai¶
Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow¶
Barath Raghavan, USC¶
Daniel Schien, University of Bristol¶
Eve M. Schooler, Intel¶
Rick Taylor, Ori Industries¶
Jiankang Yao, CNNIC¶
The participants who attended at least one of the four sessions were:¶
Alex Clemm¶
Ali Rezaki¶
Arif Ahmed¶
Beatrice Siccardi¶
Brendan Moran¶
Bruce Nordman¶
Carlos Pignataro¶
Carsten Bormann¶
Cedric Westphal¶
Chiara Lombardo¶
Chris Adams¶
Colin Perkins¶
Daniel Schien¶
Dawn Nafus¶
Dom Robinson¶
Eric Voit¶
Éric Vyncke¶
Esther Roure Vila¶
Eve M. Schooler¶
Fieke Jansen¶
Franco Davoli¶
Gonzalo Salgueiro¶
Greg Mirsky¶
Henk Birkholz¶
Hesham ElBakoury¶
Hosein Badran¶
Iankang Yao¶
Jan Lindblad¶
Jari Arkko¶
Jens Malmodin¶
Jiankang Yao¶
John Preuß Mattsson¶
Jukka Manner¶
Julien Maisonneuve¶
Kristin Moyer¶
Lars Eggert¶
Laurent Ciavaglia¶
Lijun Dong¶
Louis Navarre¶
Louise Krug¶
Luis M. Contreras¶
Marisol Palmero Amador¶
Martin Flack¶
Maya Richman¶
Michael Welzl¶
Mike Mattera¶
Mohamed Boucadair¶
Nina Lövehagen¶
Noa Zilberman¶
Olivier Bonaventure¶
Pascal Thubert¶
Paul Shabajee¶
Per Andersson¶
Pernilla Bergmark¶
Peyman Teymoori¶
Qin Wu¶
Remy Hellstern¶
Rick Taylor¶
Rob WIlton¶
Rob Wilton¶
Romain Jacob¶
Russ White¶
Safiqul Islam¶
Selome Kostentinos Tesfatsion¶
Shayna Robinson¶
Snezana Mitrovic¶
Stefano Salsano¶
Suresh Krishnan¶
Tirumaleswar Reddy.K¶
Toerless Eckert¶
Uri Cummings¶
Vesna Manojlovic¶
Wim Vanderbauwhede¶
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was approved for publication were:¶
Naturally, most of the credit goes to the workshop participants.¶
The organizers wish to thankCindy Morgan andGreg Wood for their work on thepractical arrangements and communications relating to theworkshop. This report was greatly enhanced by the feedback provided onit. Thanks toMichael Welzl in particular for his detailed review.¶