Re: [eman] YANG model for battery MIB

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

We will have to check this, but for now I must say I did not know that
one could generate the YANG model simply by issuing that command.

Quickly skimming through it seems that 'smidump -f yang BATTERY-MIB'
would not add a contact address of the person who performed the translation.

Alex

Le 08/07/2016 à 14:31, Juergen Schoenwaelder a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> how is this different from 'smidump -f yang BATTERY-MIB', which
> implements the translation defined in RFC 6643? RFC 6643 was written
> to avoid manual translations and having to republish MIB modules
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:24:34PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We have submitted a new draft describing a YANG model for the
>> battery MIB:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-battery-mib-yang-00
>>
>> How should we pursue this draft?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 06/07/2016 à 13:52, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ eman mailing
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>
>> _______________________________________________ eman mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>