Re: [eman] BNordman - draft-ietf-eman-framework-09: WGLC comments
Bruce Nordman <bnordman@lbl.gov> Mon, 04 November 2013 18:05 UTC
Return-Path: <bnordman@lbl.gov>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E7E11E8209 for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:05:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.532, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-ijEmagpli3 for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fe1.lbl.gov (fe1.lbl.gov [128.3.41.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DD411E812B for <eman@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:04:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Ironport-SBRS: 4.8
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkkEAO/gd1LRVaA2lGdsb2JhbABWA4JDfFOtD4loiEeBIQgWDgEBAQEHCwsJEiqCJQEBBAFnCwcFCwsLOyISAQUBHAYTh3sGBQigEZ40jhkBBoEoEAcRhB0DiUCOSoEvjm4YKYRyG4EsAR8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,634,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="32325967"
Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]) by fe1.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ro12so1952208pbb.41 for <eman@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=phxgB1VdjHuQBXz4YRn5WWvsKrBFzjEF5MTR2y3vlao=; b=PtvxoL4DcqZrHbjKr3GJiEf7lGiEaKmlbxwcNrWULGJM/gjvs+L9I7TViVNa21TKXd MlAH7U9ZtXB4El+DY6y6jhh9V7VeJaszHp+nK67od8ykLaNAJcEOFB6SCvydQ8pVTwkw 7O1FpIqwfnTNCZIWhIB4smWhuCqi1ooUGuS2+uWF0egPOXiUc3e6jZo+PfYwqlFUyJYt wVYLRH5FIkuAoWC88W6uiza/G6UBE+x39sPaTSKHz6JviDC+yO8cy2KCe0sPam1SWE5J cOY5OjhVgKJiRgm5zF71Y4KP2xttSkG6sMdl4vbg52aJeT3YEcR3AG659DB1VHEANaHA Atpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0jzg1LRRiK2FfeJZ8v1VCpb72/b443aP22Z4vsZEZmB64ZBAahXDno88s423bUARqReFOD6ARRKBkJuahtTIJEznFOUzS1sQFAAYeuxL6GjB5IV5GVpOzoObVpGhepaFDGtl3
X-Received: by 10.68.130.234 with SMTP id oh10mr19200333pbb.0.1383588289610; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.130.234 with SMTP id oh10mr19200312pbb.0.1383588289459; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.148.134 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9C213D38848B89428F46808B16F6F0860166795D@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
References: <9C213D38848B89428F46808B16F6F0860166795D@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK+eDP96my12sKq11jqgPpWRn0ioB=+O8jRMtSrUS941+fjnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bruce Nordman <bnordman@lbl.gov>
To: "John Parello (jparello)" <jparello@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b10cb7582495d04ea5dc087"
Cc: "eman@ietf.org" <eman@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eman] BNordman - draft-ietf-eman-framework-09: WGLC comments
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <eman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman>
List-Post: <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:05:05 -0000
John-- Thanks much for carefully considering and replying to my comments. While the document is improving, as you note, there are still many major issues where we don't agree. I do agree with you that further discussion is not likely to change either of our minds so no need to invest time in that. I still think that starting from the Energy Reporting draft draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-02<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nordman-eman-er-framework/> would get us to a framework document suitable for passing WGLC faster and with a higher quality result. My concerns are still such that I don't think this version is suitable for WGLC. However, if I am the only one on the list stating that then that is not sufficient to block progress. I trust you will all have a good and productive meeting. Best regards, --Bruce On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM, John Parello (jparello) <jparello@cisco.com > wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Thanks so much for your comments. Considering your position on the draft > I'll limit the comments applied to those that are or are near editorial. > Those that indicate a previously stated approach counter to your proposal > I'll leave so we don't have unnecessary debate or lobbying. > > (+) Applied in the draft > (-) Regretfully not applied for the reasons listed > (!) Not applied needing more clarification and/or see further comment or > thread > > > Thanks > Jp > > --------------------------------- > > > The EMAN Framework draft is improving, as has been noted. That said, > the comments below plus those in the review a few days ago from Juergen > Quittek indicate that the document still has far to go. This list > is not comprehensive--that is not feasible with so much to address. > In addition, fixes that these comments lead to are likely to introduce > new issues or make clear existing ones that are not now readily apparent. > As this document has changed considerably over the past three+ years, > new issues continue to crop up. > > > Conceptual issues: > > The mechanisms described for importance and role are non-standard and > arbitrary. We might do well to have standard mechanisms for some > of these, but creating an anecdotal set solely in the context of EMAN > seems unlikely to contribute to that. Until such time as there is some > basis for incorporating specific content, these should be left as > free-form keywords encoded in some standard syntax. > > - JP : We gave guidance on that field. Moving this to keywords with no > standard syntax only moves your point to another attribute?. > > The "relationship" concept is not necessary. Simpler methods can express > what is required. It makes the document harder to understand, and so > is a barrier to it being widely adopted. > > - JP : We receive feedback that this was useful and we've carried this > approach for some time > > It is stated that a device should be labeled as "a consumer, producer, > or meter, distributor, or store of energy". It isn't explained what the > value of making this distinction is. > > ! JP : we can expand on that but though the category was enough. > Suggestions? > > The concept of "caliber"is not needed; accuracy is sufficient. > > - JP : This was our most asked for attributes. Accuracy for a device that > does not use statistical nor physical (H/W) means to measure power is > meaningless. We need a way to indicate which devices can or can't measure > power (some based on table lookups for example) See any EnMS on their > "power ratings" Joulex, Nimsoft, Schneider etc. Also device manufacturers > embraced this notion at ODVA and the Cisco implementation. Very much needed. > > The draft states that a device must have at least two states: one > on state and one off state. There are devices for sale that have > two states, on and sleep (but no off) and devices with only one > state. Why have this restriction? and why require a device to > report power states at all? most will certainly but some might > appropriately not do so. > > + JP : should > > > The explanation of power state semantics in 4.5 is not consistent > with general usage of the concept of power state. Power limitation > may be useful, but it is a different concept from power state and > should not be conflated. > > 4.5.4. These are arbitrary. It would be better to specify registration > of the Cisco power state set since that is presumably already in use. > > 4.6. Power Source Relationship and Metering Relationship are redundant. > As the text points out, both are about wiring topologies. > > 4.6.3. The second and last paragraphs seem to be contradictory as > to whether two non-connected PIs can have a Power Source Relationship. > > 4.6.3. It is not clear how metering is to be applied. > > 4.6.4. It is stated that "Establishing aggregation relationships within > the same device would make modeling more complex…". The ER Framework > accomplishes this without any complexity burden, so the statement in > general is not true. It may be true of the EMAN Framework but that is > simply a flaw in the document. > > 4.6.5. The text leaves "proxy" relationships for future development, > but there are requirements (8.1) for proxy control that the framework > seems to not cover. > > 6. It is stated that some products cannot support power interfaces. > Any device can and could simply report "unknown" for data they do not know. > > 6.1. The draft indicates that power interfaces can be between devices and > components. This adds a lot of complexity to the PI concept. It would > be much simpler to not allow PIs between components. For those niche > applications that desire that, the component in question could be modeled > as a distinct device. Thus, complexity of EMAN could be reduced without > sacrificing capability. > > Aggregation: > > 4.6. It is completely unclear how the Aggregation Relationship mentioned > is supposed to operate. > > 4.6.4. It is suggested that a device can report only a single aggregation. > Is that true? > > 6.3. explains what aggregation is, but not how it actually works. > The two sentences in the middle paragraph contradict each other. > > Corrections: > > The introductions states that "The framework introduces the concept of > a power interface". This is not true. The power interface concept > was introduced in draft-quittek-eman-reference-model-02, over two > years ago. Also, the definition provided for Power Interface doesn't > make sense, and does not correspond to the concept described in the > Reference Model, or the ER Framework. The latter has a clear explanation, > the first sentence of which could be a definition. > > ! JP : We merged that document with this and the authors are on this > document. @Chairs can we reference a non-wg item that is expired, best way > to footnote this? > > The bulleted text under 4.5.2 on IEEE 1621 is wrong. I have pointed > this out many many times without it being fixed. Also, for 4.5.5, > IEEE 1621 does NOT say that hibernate is a form of sleep; it says that > hibernate should be presented as a form of off. This error has also > been pointed out many times. > > + JP : changed to off in 4.5.5. Section 4.5.2 now directly quotes > IEEE1621 4.1 > """ > The IEEE1621 Power State Set [IEEE1621] consists of 3 rudimentary states: > on, off or sleep. > In IEEE1621 devices are limited to the three basic power states — on, > sleep, and off. Any additional power states are variants of one of the > basic states rather than a fourth state. > """ > > Details: > > 2. Definition of "Meter". Change "intended to measure" to "that measures". > In general, what is the difference intended when "are intended to" is > used as opposed to what the referenced concepts actually do? > > - JP : see IEC60050 > > Unnecessary text: > > The document is burdened throughout by text that is unnecessary to > accomplish what is needed. This makes reading it more difficult and > so would impede use of the standard. An example is defining and > discussing Non-Electrical Equipment. This is more appropriate to > an application/implementation discussion document, not a framework. > Other examples include the list of target devices in Section 3.1, all > of Section 3.4, sections 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, the second half of 4.3.6, > and the middle two paragraphs of 4.4. > > The requirements RFC says: > 5.5.1. Energy Measurement > The standard must provide means for reporting measured values of > energy and the direction of the energy flow received or provided by > an entity. The standard must also provide the means to report the > energy passing through each Power Interface. > The Framework says: > 4.4.3. Measurements: Energy > Optionally, an Energy Object that can report actual power > readings will have energy attributes that provide the > energy used, produced, or stored in kWh. > Aside from noting that kWh are to be used, what is the point of saying > this at all? and if this is about reporting energy, why does the text > talk about power? > > ! JP : Not sure how you can have energy values if you can't measure actual > power. ANything you can suggest to make that clearer as you read it? > > Thanks! > Jp > > > -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *nordman.lbl.gov <http://nordman.lbl.gov>* BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943
- [eman] BNordman - draft-ietf-eman-framework-09: W… John Parello (jparello)
- Re: [eman] BNordman - draft-ietf-eman-framework-0… Bruce Nordman