Re: [eman] 2nd try: Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi  Brad,

I had replied earlier  that the EMAN use cases were compiled based on several WG meetings and comments or feedback on the email list.

The feedback from Pete Resnick  was that the the specific use cases in question,  were not addressed in EMAN, and hence either mention "out of scope" or delete them.

As suggested by Pete, we can mention that those use cases are out of scope.

Thanks
Mouli



From: Brad Schoening <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 9:02 AM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Mouli Chandramouli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: 2nd try: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Mouli,

Just wondering if you plan further updates to the applicability statement draft responding to the concerns raised, or if you would be ok deleting these specific use cases as not really being unique and non-overlapping.

Regards,

Brad

On 4/26/2015 11:01 PM, Brad Schoening wrote:
Mouli,

Your comments address the intent for adding these use cases, but they don't respond to the critique of them, and therefore don't justify them.  Can you please respond to Pete & Alissa's questions.  Otherwise, let's delete them as Bruce & I have suggested.

Regards,

Brad

On 4/23/2015 9:45 PM, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) wrote:
Hi  Brian,

Some of the specific use cases, you are referring had been provided as feedback to WG (email or meetings)  when the draft was draft was presented.
It was felt that it would be useful  "unique, non-overlapping" set of use cases (scenarios) of interest to energy management.
It may be that after the other MIB drafts have evolved over the years, it may be that we solve only a subset of use cases.

Thanks
Mouli




From: Brian Haberman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:35 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope,
especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This
DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to
delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero
building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status.


_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman




_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman


--
Brad Schoening
Email:


--
Brad Schoening
Email: