[eman] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: No Objection

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/



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


This is updated. The original comments were posted for -08
back in December. I don't believe I've ever seen any mail on
this one since. (Not unreasonable as Pete's discuss was 
being handled.) However, I don't see major changes between
-08 and -10 so I've not (yet, I will if time) gone fully back
over this again. It'd be nice (for me:-) if someone responded
to these comments as if they were made on -10 before the
telechat.

- general: I am not at all sure that this does match the
other EMAN documents that have been through IESG
evaluation (which is the stated reason for this being
last). See my comments below, but this seems to me to not
have been updated to reflect where the actual EMAN
drafts/RFCs ended up. Is that a fair comment? If so, it
really should at least be noted in this draft (or fixed!).
If not, then I'm confused and my memory must be worse than
I thought. 

- I support Pete's discuss

- general: I don't care much if the title confuses this
with an AS or not:-)

- general: Given the write-up would it be worth re-casting
this into the past tense? (Or a part of the abstract and
intro at least and then explaining the use of the present
tense elsewhere.)

- 1.3, 2nd last para: what is a proxy here?

- 1.5: EnMS vs NMS - aren't both likely to be pronounced
the same by some folks? Is this term used in other EMAN
docs? If not, maybe get rid of it as it'd not then be
needed perhaps?

- 2.11 - I don't recall printers being mentioned in other
EMAN docs, but that's probably my fallible memory.

- 2.12 - I thought these devices were out of scope for
EMAN? If so don't you need to say? If not, then can you
explain how I'm confused given that there were a bunch of
times Pete and I asked about energy harvesting setups and
were told those were not in scope?

- 4.1.2.1 - ACPI is mentioned twice but is never expanded
never mind explained. Given that this is the power state
thing with which most readers of this RFC will be
familiar, I think that is quite an omission, and one that
ought be fixed.

- 4.1.4 refers to a 2011 draft - surely that's been
updated or OBE by now? If "draft" here means something
sufficiently different from Internet-draft, then that'd be
worth explaining.

- section 4 generally seems quite US centric, which is a
pity. I'm not suggesting you try fix that now, but
nonetheless... a pity.

- section 5 seems quite outdated if I correctly recall the
discussions we had at iesg evaluation of other EMAN
documents. Why wasn't this kept in sync with those
discussions?

- section 6 is bogus - you said EMAN could also use YANG
so SNMP is not sufficient here. I would like to have seen
a real analysis of the security and privacy issues related
to energy management but that seems to still be missing.
And again if I recall correctly that was a topic that you
de-scoped for other EMAN documents. Yet again that is not
recoreded here.

- the secdir review [1] also notes the paucity of the
security considerations text (and was only responded
to by the AD, not by the authors, even though it 
raises some specific issues).

   [1]
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05257.html

- The above two points are not DISCUSSes for a couple of
reasons. 1) the charter (sadly) doesn't explicitly call
for security or privacy to be considered and clearly this
group were not interested in those topics, and 2) there
seems to be no hope at all that such work would be done
given where the WG are in their life-cycle. I would hope
that any newly chartered work on energy management would
better take into account these real issues. (And should I
still be on the IESG, that'd be more than a "hope":-)