Re: [eman] energy-specific efforts at IETF?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 30/06/2016 à 06:49, joel jaeggli a écrit :
> On 6/28/16 8:10 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> Sure. But your two statements (in the first paragraph) use each of
>> the conditional 'may'. What is the reason to use YANG on the devices?
>> The SDN paradigm does not AFAIK make assumptions about using a
>> specific protocol or DML at the device management level. YANG comes
>> at a certain cost (bits on wire, memory). Maybe this is affordable,
>> or maybe YANG is needed for other reasons, but this needs to be shown
>> explicitely.
>
> Signaling presumes in some utility is derived from coordination.
>
> If I have a ten year primary battery or I'm a space probe headed to
> alpha centuri I'm not going to devote a lot of electrons to expressing
> my power consumption or battery condition.
>
> More active or particularly coordinated groups of devices such as the
> elements of a BST or a datacenter might well have information to share.

Whereas I can expect a BST (Base Station?) to be operated on chemical 
battery in emergency areas, it would be hard to imagine an entire 
datacenter on battery - wouldn't it rather be on combustion-engine 
electricity generators?

For the BST case: I will write separately.

For the datacenter: I think there would be a need for an entirely 
different MIB, different than a battery-MIB.

Alex

>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016
>>> 5:55 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Rolf Winter; Nadeau Thomas Cc:
>>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [eman] energy-specific efforts at IETF?
>>>
>>> The SDN paradigm may be applied not just to switches but to
>>> smartphones. Further, a tool like CoMI (CoAP Management Interface)
>>> may make use of YANG models on IoT devices which are typically
>>> constrained on battery.
>>>
>>> Yesterday I read about an NB-IoT LPWA device from u-blox which runs
>>> on a battery for 10 years.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Le 02/06/2016 à 11:20, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) a écrit :
>>>> No, RFC 7577 defines an SMIv2 MIB.
>>>>
>>>> Before engaging in a discussion about 'let us do EMAN data
>>>> modelling in YANG' I would like to see a use case - i.e. an
>>>> example of an energy monitoring system that uses YANG for
>>>> reporting energy information.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: eman
>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:22 AM To: Rolf Winter; Nadeau
>>>>> Thomas Cc: [e-mail] Subject: Re: [eman] energy-specific
>>>>> efforts at IETF?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 02/06/2016 à 10:18, Rolf Winter a écrit :
>>>>>> Is there anything that the EMAN work is not addressing or
>>>>>> that requires new protocol work?
>>>>>
>>>>> For my clarification - is the battery monitoring MIB RFC7577
>>>>> using YANG?
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Nadeau Thomas
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that I know of in the form of an official working
>>>>>>> group. EMAN was
>>>>> shut down something like a year ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2016:8:34 AM, at 8:34 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any other effort focusing on energy consumption
>>>>>>>> happening at
>>>>> IETF currently?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am interested in aspects related to energy consumption
>>>>>>>> of IP networks
>>>>> used to deliver video streams.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex Petrescu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 09/06/2015 à 05:01, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) a
>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Thanks to all the WG chairs for shepherding the IETF
>>>>>>>>> drafts and taking them to a conclusion. I may not be
>>>>>>>>> able to travel to Prague.  So, enjoy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers Mouli
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Nadeau Thomas <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Date: Saturday, 6
>>>>>>>>> June 2015 2:22 AM To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)"
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: eman
>>>>>>>>> mailing list <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>>>>>>>>> "[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>>>> [eman] Status of the EMAN W.G. effort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Beers are on you! 8)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2015:4:46 PM, at 4:46 PM, Benoit Claise
>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, thanks to the contributors, document editors, WG
>>>>>>>>>> chairs, previous ADs :-), basically the entire EMAN
>>>>>>>>>> community. Celebration in Prague? Fine with me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that we've crossed the milstone of having
>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-11 move to
>>>>>>>>>>> the RFC editor
>>>>> queue,
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can pause and reflect on the effort that
>>>>>>>>>>> has completed.
>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> took a while to get here and the consensus that we
>>>>>>>>>>> built was hard
>>>>> won
>>>>>>>>>>> but I hope durable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's my intention to close down the working group,
>>>>>>>>>>> maintaining the mailing list for a time. The
>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list archive as with other IETF mailing
>>>>>>>>>>> lists will be preserved. in the immediate sense if
>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>> around the edges of this space we have the opsawg
>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>> group
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> support such activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you again for your diligent efforts,
>>>>>>>>>>> especially the present and former chairs who
>>>>>>>>>>> shepherded this work to the point that it is at
>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards Joel
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________ eman mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>
>
>