RE: Introducing a new HTTP response header for Carbon Emissions calculation

You guys are drastic in shortening the header field name! Are there rules or guidelines in header naming?

WRT a "CO2-Accept" request header field, I agree it may be overkill.

Thanks!

Bertrand Martin
sentrysoftware.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:57 PM
> To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
> Cc: Bertrand Martin <bertrand@sentrysoftware.com>; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Introducing a new HTTP response header for Carbon Emissions
> calculation
> 
> If we really want a short header name, why not just:
> 
>     CO2: <value>
> 
> (our shed is a lovely shade now, isn't it?)
> 
> WRT negotiation, I think adding a request header/value limits the
> opportunistic value and adds a tiny bit more resource usage over just sending
> it if you have it.
> 
> 
> > On Apr 11, 2023, at 1:34 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Really good idea to get some eco accounting into http.  I've pinged some of
> my contacts who do such accounting to see if they can provide some more
> detailed use-cases of how it might be used.
> >
> > I know that headers are often compressed now, but it is still likely to often
> be sent in plain text.  So it might be a good idea to save some bytes with a
> shorter header: "C-Emmisions-2"
> >
> > Also, it would be a pity to calculate it and send it if the client was not
> expecting it.  We could define some kind of expect or accept header in the
> request to indicate that the header should be sent in the response, but that
> might just needlessly create more data sent.    Is there a way we could signal
> on a connection by connection basis if the client is listening for such a
> header?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 15:25, Bertrand Martin
> <bertrand@sentrysoftware.com> wrote:
> > Hi, (newbie here)
> >
> > I submitted a new I-D to define a simple HTTP response header field with
> the amount of CO2-eq in grams emitted by the processing of the request and
> the production of the response: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-
> http-carbon-emissions-scope-2/
> >
> > Example:
> > Carbon-Emissions-Scope-2: 0.0000456
> >
> > The goal:
> > If HTTP servers are able to calculate or estimate this value, it will allow
> clients and applications to assess their Scope 3 carbon emissions. It is critical
> that we define a standard header for reporting this metric to help
> organizations assess the carbon emissions associated to the consumption of
> external services, SaaS, or even a Web site, a Google search, a ChatGPT
> response, etc.
> >
> > Note: We're talking about Scope-2 emissions only (i.e. associated to the
> electricity consumed while performing the service), because you only need to
> take into account the Scope-2 emissions of your suppliers when you estimate
> your own Scope-3 emissions. See https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.html
> and
> https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards_supporting/FAQ.pdf for
> more information on Scope 1, 2 and 3.
> >
> > Any chance this would be looked at by the HTTPbis WG? I believe this could
> transform the industry in how it handles carbon emissions.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Bertrand Martin
> > sentrysoftware.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> CTO http://webtide.com
> 
> ________________________
> Michael Sweet

Received on Thursday, 13 April 2023 23:34:06 UTC