Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

[Ira McDonald <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Brad - good precedent - because it makes the "importance"
machine readable (and therefore useful).

But since EMAN (and many other IETF WGs) have consistently
backed away from any standard definition of "role" (w/ behavior
semantics that are predictable), a text string of "role" is useless
(except in a vendor- or site-specific manner - out-of-scope IMHO).

And I suggest that the "universe of things" is too diverse to lend
itself to an IANA registry of standard "role" keywords.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:[e-mail]
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434



On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Benoit,
>
> There is a precedence for doing this on the device in the PoE MIB, rfc3621
> which defines pethPsePortPowerPriority:
>
>    pethPsePortPowerPriority OBJECT-TYPE
>     SYNTAX INTEGER   {
>                critical(1),
>                high(2),
>                low(3)
>      }
>     MAX-ACCESS read-write
>     STATUS current
>     DESCRIPTION
>         "This object controls the priority of the port from the point
>          of view of a power management algorithm.  The priority that
>          is set by this variable could be used by a control mechanism
>          that prevents over current situations by disconnecting first
>          ports with lower power priority.  Ports that connect devices
>          critical to the operation of the network - like the E911
>          telephones ports - should be set to higher priority."
>     ::= { pethPsePortEntry 7 }
>
>
>
> Brad Schoening
> e: [e-mail] ⟐ m: 917-304-7190
>
>
> [image: Description: Coraid+Logo_reallysmall] <http://www.coraid.com/> Redefining
> Storage Economics****
>
> ** **
>
> From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
> To: eman mailing list <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>
>  Dear all,
>
> There is a discussion amongst the "EMAN requirements" authors right now
> about the notion of importance.
> We're trying to evaluate the requirements related to the "importance".
>
> The current draft version<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05>only mentions:
>
> 5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities   The energy management standard must provide means for retrieving and
>    reporting context information on powered entities, for example, tags
>    associated with a powered entity that indicate the powered entity's
>    role, or importance.
>
>
> So there are no justifications why the importance is required.
> The people who want this, please provide some more text/justifications
>
> Some extra questions:
> - Is this importance specific to EMAN or is this generic also for non
> Energy Objects?
> - Importance is important related to ...?
>
> Regards, Benoit (as a contributor for the EMAN-REQ)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eman mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
>