Re: [eman] Read-Only or Read-Write EMAN MIBs

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 12 February 2014 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFCD1A02C6 for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:53:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wpfalRbuXiAP for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA6A1A0238 for <eman@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:53:28 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkIFACF8+1LGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABagmshgQ+/KIESFnSCJQEBAQEDEig0FwQCAQgNAQMEAQELFAkHMhQJCAIEARIIGodjAZw8rG0XjhEXAQEeOAaDHoEUBJ8ZizKDLYFxOQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,832,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="42694892"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2014 08:53:26 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 12 Feb 2014 08:42:05 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:53:24 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [eman] Read-Only or Read-Write EMAN MIBs
Thread-Index: AQHPJ0LKAi3Xzvo/0kC6ip3cJ++yrZqxnqIg
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:53:24 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA2E403CD4@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <88A474D1-677D-4BA0-8399-0429A095AE45@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <88A474D1-677D-4BA0-8399-0429A095AE45@lucidvision.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [eman] Read-Only or Read-Write EMAN MIBs
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <eman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/>
List-Post: <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:53:31 -0000

Hi,

In a previous mail I expressed my opinion about removing the writable objects of draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-11.

Here is my take on the other two documents.

draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-14 already has conformance clauses for read-only and read-write support. Folks should be aware that making the devices readable only means that the configuration objects in the MIB module which are about the reporting policies and domains will not be writeable via a standard interface. I have no operational experience with energy management to have an opinion if this makes sense or not. 

draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 has two writable objects. I do not understand well enough eoPowerStateEnterReason, in general I am no fan of objects that pass information by writable strings, so I do not have a clear opinion if it makes sense to make this object read-only or take it out. The second object eoPowerEnableStatusNotification is a switch that activates and de-activates notifications. Such MIB objects are not really configuration objects for the protocol or device, they rather configure the mode of work of the agents. I believe they can be left writable. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eman [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:03 PM
> To: eman mailing list
> Subject: [eman] Read-Only or Read-Write EMAN MIBs
> 
> 
> 	EMAN WG:
> 
> 	The EMAN WG currently has three MIBs that are WG drafts:
> 
> 	draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-11
> 	draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-14
> 	draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08
> 
> 	At present Benoit as AD, the Ops Directorate and MIB Doctors are
> preparing a statement to WGs that strongly recommends against MIBs with
> writable objects unless the working group has a strong consensus to do so.
> The current *draft* of the statement is listed here for your information:
> 
> The OPS area recommends the use of NETCONF/YANG standards for
> configuration. IETF working groups are therefore encouraged to use the
> NETCONF/YANG standards for configuration, specifically in new charters.
> SNMP MIB modules modifying persistent configuration state should only be
> produced by working groups in cases of clear utility and overwhelming
> consensus to use SNMP write operations for configuration.
> 
> 	In an effort to head off any potential snafus during the IESG review
> of the three EMAN MIBs, I want to poll the WG for consensus on whether or
> not to make the current list of WG documents read-write or read-only. If
> there is not strong consensus to leave them read-write, Nevil and I will
> instruct the editors to edit the documents to remove writable objects.
> 
> 	Please post comments on this matter by Friday, February 14, 2014 at
> 9AM EDT.
> 
> 
> 	Tom
> 	EMAN WG Co-Chair
> 
>