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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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
>