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

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

Hello, 

 

It would be useful to have a description of what is meant by the term in the requirement draft. 

 

       “Importance is a means for ranking devices in the context 
   of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical 
   to the operation. The value is useful during peak demand when deciding 
   which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an 
   operator or control system a way to determine which devices should 
   receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak 
   hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn off 
   devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which powered 
   entities should be switched to lower power states.” 

 

Second is the requirement 

 

   5.1.3.  The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting

   importance of powered entities. 

 

 

Thanks

Mouli

 

From: Benoit Claise (bclaise) 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:34 PM
To: Juergen Quittek
Cc: Rolf Winter; John Parello (jparello); Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening; eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

 

Juergen, Rolf, John

Looking at Rolf's feedback:

I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to switch
something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to decide
between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever this
object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with it)
I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
cases. Care to share more?

Would you guys be happier with a compromise such as "business importance", "context importance" or "Energy Management Importance"?

Expanding on Juergen's proposal:
OLD:



   5.1.3. Power-down priority
 
   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting
   power priorities of powered entities. Power-down priorities indicate
   an order in which powered entities should be switched to lower power
   states in case lower power states are desired.


NEW: 



   5.1.3. xxxxx
 
   The standard must provide means for ranking devices in the context 
   of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical 
   to the operation. The value is useful during peak demand when deciding 
   which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an 
   operator or control system a way to determine which devices should 
   receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak 
   hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn off 
   devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which powered 
   entities should be switched to lower power states.
 
 
Regarding your role proposal 5.1.2, I believe it's fine.
 
Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)

	Dear all,
	 
	The requirements draft is the first one to be agreed on.
	We can do this without having to deal with all details
	that the framework and the MIB modules can solve.
	 
	In the current version draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05 there
	is a requirement
	 
	OLD
	   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.
	 
	 
	Seeing the ongoing discussion I suggest separating "role" and "importance"
	and moving from the fuzzy term "importance" to "power-down priority".
	This would look like the following:
	 
	NEW
	   5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities
	 
	   The 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.
	 
	   5.1.3. Power-down priority
	 
	   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting
	   power priorities of powered entities. Power-down priorities indicate
	   an order in which powered entities should be switched to lower power
	   states in case lower power states are desired.
	 
	I think that the proposed requirement 5.1.3 covers Rolf's requirements
	 
	 
	for accurate naming and John's requirements for the functionality he
	calls "importance".
	 
	Thanks,
	    Juergen
	 
	 
	On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>  wrote:
	 

		Hey John,
		 
		I am not asking for an IANA registry but a good description and
		justification of importance. For most requirements it is just naturally
		clear to have them such as having the ability to monitor power states. No
		justification needed in my opinion. Then a half sentences in the document
		requires something that is called "importance". Here I see a need for a
		description and justification because it means different things to
		different people. 
		 
		BTW, I don't think that priority means the order in which devices need to
		be powered up. It certainly doesn’t mean that in the PoE context:
		 
		"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."
		 
		I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to switch
		something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to decide
		between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
		will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever this
		object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
		it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
		to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
		something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with it)
		I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
		cases. Care to share more?
		 
		Best,
		 
		Rolf
		 
		 
		NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
		London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
		 
		 

			-----Original Message-----
			From: John Parello (jparello) [mailto:[e-mail]]
			Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05
			To: Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad
			Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
			 
			Hi Rolf,
			 
			I used the terms in the email - it's defined in the framework,
			definitions and MIB.  I'm not just throwing terms out I'm trying to
			help to show *you* the difference in the email text. So let's focus on
			the problem not try to discredit my word selection and  transitively
			my premise in the drafts.
			 
			On to the concept you're not seeing.
			 
			Here's an example of the different concepts. Priority is ordering
			(precedence) like boot ordering,   while importance is context
			(significance).
			 
			Example:
			 
			So say I have devices on my trading floor and it is completely powered
			off. I may have to power  them up in a certain order based on priority
			but once they are up their running importance is different.
			 
			(PRIORITY)
			Network Services
			File Services
			Software / Application Repository servers Database Servers Clients
			Access Lobby Phones Trading Phones
			 
			Once they are running the importance to the business is different and
			could be
			 
			(IMPORTANCE)
			Network Services  (90-100)
			Trading Phones  (80-90)
			File Services (70-80)
			Databases Servers (60-80)
			Client Access (30-50)
			Lobby Phones (10-30)
			Software / Application Repository Servers (1-20)
			 
			The former is precedence the latter is significance.  Since priority is
			already used in the PoE world for this I used "importance" to
			distinguish the concepts. Especially since the word priority us used
			for an action or process more times than for a device or thing. So
			priority IMO seemed more natural to the process or power versus a
			description of the device.
			 
			Simply put importance is needed to know what you can power off during
			peak demand (but not solely that's just one very major use case)
			 
			BTW Notice my use of a "fuzzy"  name space for the device roles and
			importance. Not all data needs IANA registry to be useful. So "fuzzy"
			does not equal bad. Site defined guided data is extremely useful.
			 
			I've used importance with nearly a dozen EnMS vendors and scores of
			vendors  and it's been easy to explain versus PoE priority. Happy to
			show a running system if that clears it up. Suggest any new word you
			like for the glossary and happy to discuss and select one but let's
			make sure the concepts are retained.
			 
			A bit shocked this is being debated for re-justification though as  I
			first presented at IETF-78 and it's been in the drafts since then.
			 
			To the Chairs: We need more input in this WG from EnMS vendors and BMS
			vendors because personally, dealing with over 100 vendors in a
			community of developers who use these concepts daily, I'm finding those
			actively participating in the group woefully not representative of
			problem space at all. We need more diverse input because these concepts
			are in common use and a call for re-justification at this point
			highlights that weakness.
			 
			Perhaps a demo of existing EnMS' to help educate the WG?
			 
			Jp
			 
			 
			-----Original Message-----
			From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
			Rolf Winter
			Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AM
			To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
			 
			Well let me make myself clearer then.
			 
			You said: "Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs,
			I think the value of importance is clearly illustrated." I disagree
			here because some proponents of importance state that "Priority
			describes precedence while importance describes significance. Those are
			two different concepts.". If that indeed is the case then you
			conclusion seems wrong. If priority != importance then we should
			clearly describe what importance is. I think saying importance ==
			significance doesn't do the job. It is just a substitute of the word
			using a thesaurus but not a definition of how this is used and why this
			is a requirement. But please go ahead and come forward with a good
			definition of it and a good justification of it as a requirement. We
			can more concretely discuss about it then.
			 
			Best,
			 
			Rolf
			 
			 
			 
			 
			NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
			London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
			 
			 

				-----Original Message-----
				From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
				Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02
				To: Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
				Cc: eman mailing list
				Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
				 
				Rolf,
				 
				I do not know what you disagree on.
				 
				Initially, some folks jumped on the bandwagon it is not useful in
				Energy Management.
				And then a clear example of a similar term from the IETF PoE MIB was
				shown.
				 
				Now the question is definition of the term.
				 
				I had mentioned in my email, that if it is a question of a clearer
				definition of the term, that can be provided.
				 
				Thanks
				Mouli
				 
				 
				-----Original Message-----
				From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[e-mail]]
				Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PM
				To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
				Cc: eman mailing list
				Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
				 
				Mouli,
				 
				I disagree. There are people on the list that seem to disagree that
				importance and priority are the same concept. Just the word

			importance

				is utterly confusing. It could relate to security, cost, power-up or
				power-down priority etc. Somebody mentioned PoE and there I agree it
				is clearly defined. Importance is not. Let us first clearly define

			how

				it is used, then let’s make a requirement out of it in case the WG
				feels it should be. And let us not forget to make clear what it means
				in the context of EMAN.
				 
				Best,
				 
				Rolf
				 
				 
				NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
				London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
				 
				 

					-----Original Message-----
					From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On

			Behalf

					Of Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)
					Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 06:57
					To: Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
					Cc: eman mailing list
					Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
					 
					Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs, I think
					the value of importance is clearly illustrated.
					 
					 
					 
					Regarding Role, it is not intended to be an IANA registry.  This
					concept is already used by deployments.  Should not be dismissed as
					not useful.
					 
					 
					 
					If the question is – clearer description of these terms, in the
					requirements draft, it is possible to provide some text and also

			how

					these concepts can be useful.
					 
					 
					 
					Thanks
					 
					Mouli
					 
					 
					 
					From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On

			Behalf

					Of Ira McDonald
					Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:15 PM
					To: Brad Schoening; Ira McDonald
					Cc: eman mailing list
					Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
					 
					 
					 
					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/blueroofmusic> <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
					http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
					<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> <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]> <mailto:[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
					 
					 
					 

			 

					Redefining Storage Economics
					 
					 
					 
					 
					 
					From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
					Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
					To: eman mailing list <[e-mail]> <mailto:[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
					 
					 

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

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

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