Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

[Juergen Quittek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brad,

Thanks for this hint.  Being not a native user I thought about powering
down to a lower power state, not about powering off.  But this doesn't
seem to be the way the term is commonly used.  Power shedding appears to
be much better suited.

Thanks,
    Juergen


On 01.03.12 17:25, "Brad Schoening" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Juergen,
>
>Power shedding is probably a more accurate term for the use cases here for
>priority/importance than just simply power down.  There are many things in
>a commercial setting that can be turned down, but not necessarily off.
>Things such as variable speed fans, battery chargers, etc.
>
>
>
>On 3/1/12 7:53 AM, "Juergen Quittek" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Benoit,
>>
>>I would like to standardize a mechanism, in this case the power down
>>priority.  That's what standards do.  I do not see reason to limit
>>the application of the mechanism (power down priority) to a single
>>Use case (power down less business relevant devices first).
>>
>>Why should the IETF do so?  Our task is to define useful mechanisms.
>>I do not like excluding other use cases.  Take for example a network
>>with two kinds of devices:
>>  - a few devices consuming a lot of energy and having high energy
>>    saving potential
>>  - a huge amount of devices with low power demand and very little
>>    Power saving potential when turned to sleep mode.
>>
>>Even if the business importance of the few major power consumers
>>is higher than the business importance of the many small devices,
>>an energy manager may decide to achieve its power saving objectives
>>easier by powering down a just few main energy consumers instead of
>>powering down myriads of small devices that only marginally
>>contribute to energy saving.
>>
>>We can't foresee constraints to be considered for powering down
>>Devices.  Giving the operator a "priority" allows the operator
>>to implement any scheme, may it be based on importance or mot.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>    Juergen
>>
>>
>>On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    Juergen, Rolf, John
>>>
>>>    Looking at Rolf's feedback:
>>>
>>>      I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to
>>>switch
>>>something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to
>>>decide
>>>between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
>>>will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever
>>>this
>>>object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
>>>it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
>>>to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
>>>something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with
>>>it)
>>>I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
>>>cases. Care to share more?
>>>
>>>
>>>    Would you guys be happier with a compromise such as "business
>>>    importance", "context importance" or "Energy Management Importance"?
>>>
>>>    Expanding on Juergen's proposal:
>>>    OLD:
>>>       5.1.3. Power-down priority
>>>
>>>   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting
>>>   power priorities of powered entities. Power-down priorities indicate
>>>   an order in which powered entities should be switched to lower power
>>>   states in case lower power states are desired.
>>>
>>>
>>>    NEW:
>>>       5.1.3. xxxxx
>>>
>>>   The standard must provide means for ranking devices in the context
>>>   of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical
>>>   to the operation. The value is useful during peak demand when
>>>deciding
>>>   which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an
>>>   operator or control system a way to determine which devices should
>>>   receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak
>>>   hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn
>>>off
>>>   devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which
>>>powered
>>>   entities should be switched to lower power states.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regarding your role proposal 5.1.2, I believe it's fine.
>>>
>>>Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
>>>
>>>
>>>      Dear all,
>>>
>>>The requirements draft is the first one to be agreed on.
>>>We can do this without having to deal with all details
>>>that the framework and the MIB modules can solve.
>>>
>>>In the current version draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05 there
>>>is a requirement
>>>
>>>OLD
>>>   5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities
>>>
>>>   The energy management standard must provide means for retrieving and
>>>   reporting context information on powered entities, for example, tags
>>>   associated with a powered entity that indicate the powered entity's
>>>   role, or importance.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seeing the ongoing discussion I suggest separating "role" and
>>>"importance"
>>>and moving from the fuzzy term "importance" to "power-down priority".
>>>This would look like the following:
>>>
>>>NEW
>>>   5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities
>>>
>>>   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting context
>>>   information on powered entities, for example, tags associated with a
>>>   powered entity that indicate the powered entity's role.
>>>
>>>   5.1.3. Power-down priority
>>>
>>>   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting
>>>   power priorities of powered entities. Power-down priorities indicate
>>>   an order in which powered entities should be switched to lower power
>>>   states in case lower power states are desired.
>>>
>>>I think that the proposed requirement 5.1.3 covers Rolf's requirements
>>>
>>>
>>>for accurate naming and John's requirements for the functionality he
>>>calls "importance".
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>    Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <[e-mail]>
>>><mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Hey John,
>>>
>>>I am not asking for an IANA registry but a good description and
>>>justification of importance. For most requirements it is just naturally
>>>clear to have them such as having the ability to monitor power states.
>>>No
>>>justification needed in my opinion. Then a half sentences in the
>>>document
>>>requires something that is called "importance". Here I see a need for a
>>>description and justification because it means different things to
>>>different people.
>>>
>>>BTW, I don't think that priority means the order in which devices need
>>>to
>>>be powered up. It certainly doesn’t mean that in the PoE context:
>>>
>>>"This object controls the priority of the port from the point
>>>of view of a power management algorithm.  The priority that
>>>is set by this variable could be used by a control mechanism
>>>that prevents over current situations by disconnecting first
>>>ports with lower power priority.  Ports that connect devices
>>>critical to the operation of the network - like the E911
>>>telephones ports - should be set to higher priority."
>>>
>>>I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to switch
>>>something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to
>>>decide
>>>between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
>>>will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever
>>>this
>>>object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
>>>it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
>>>to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
>>>something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with
>>>it)
>>>I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
>>>cases. Care to share more?
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>Rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>>>London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          -----Original Message-----
>>>From: John Parello (jparello) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05
>>>To: Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad
>>>Schoening
>>>Cc: eman mailing list
>>>Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>Hi Rolf,
>>>
>>>I used the terms in the email - it's defined in the framework,
>>>definitions and MIB.  I'm not just throwing terms out I'm trying to
>>>help to show *you* the difference in the email text. So let's focus on
>>>the problem not try to discredit my word selection and  transitively
>>>my premise in the drafts.
>>>
>>>On to the concept you're not seeing.
>>>
>>>Here's an example of the different concepts. Priority is ordering
>>>(precedence) like boot ordering,   while importance is context
>>>(significance).
>>>
>>>Example:
>>>
>>>So say I have devices on my trading floor and it is completely powered
>>>off. I may have to power  them up in a certain order based on priority
>>>but once they are up their running importance is different.
>>>
>>>(PRIORITY)
>>>Network Services
>>>File Services
>>>Software / Application Repository servers Database Servers Clients
>>>Access Lobby Phones Trading Phones
>>>
>>>Once they are running the importance to the business is different and
>>>could be
>>>
>>>(IMPORTANCE)
>>>Network Services  (90-100)
>>>Trading Phones  (80-90)
>>>File Services (70-80)
>>>Databases Servers (60-80)
>>>Client Access (30-50)
>>>Lobby Phones (10-30)
>>>Software / Application Repository Servers (1-20)
>>>
>>>The former is precedence the latter is significance.  Since priority is
>>>already used in the PoE world for this I used "importance" to
>>>distinguish the concepts. Especially since the word priority us used
>>>for an action or process more times than for a device or thing. So
>>>priority IMO seemed more natural to the process or power versus a
>>>description of the device.
>>>
>>>Simply put importance is needed to know what you can power off during
>>>peak demand (but not solely that's just one very major use case)
>>>
>>>BTW Notice my use of a "fuzzy"  name space for the device roles and
>>>importance. Not all data needs IANA registry to be useful. So "fuzzy"
>>>does not equal bad. Site defined guided data is extremely useful.
>>>
>>>I've used importance with nearly a dozen EnMS vendors and scores of
>>>vendors  and it's been easy to explain versus PoE priority. Happy to
>>>show a running system if that clears it up. Suggest any new word you
>>>like for the glossary and happy to discuss and select one but let's
>>>make sure the concepts are retained.
>>>
>>>A bit shocked this is being debated for re-justification though as  I
>>>first presented at IETF-78 and it's been in the drafts since then.
>>>
>>>To the Chairs: We need more input in this WG from EnMS vendors and BMS
>>>vendors because personally, dealing with over 100 vendors in a
>>>community of developers who use these concepts daily, I'm finding those
>>>actively participating in the group woefully not representative of
>>>problem space at all. We need more diverse input because these concepts
>>>are in common use and a call for re-justification at this point
>>>highlights that weakness.
>>>
>>>Perhaps a demo of existing EnMS' to help educate the WG?
>>>
>>>Jp
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>Rolf Winter
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AM
>>>To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>>>Cc: eman mailing list
>>>Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>Well let me make myself clearer then.
>>>
>>>You said: "Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs,
>>>I think the value of importance is clearly illustrated." I disagree
>>>here because some proponents of importance state that "Priority
>>>describes precedence while importance describes significance. Those are
>>>two different concepts.". If that indeed is the case then you
>>>conclusion seems wrong. If priority != importance then we should
>>>clearly describe what importance is. I think saying importance ==
>>>significance doesn't do the job. It is just a substitute of the word
>>>using a thesaurus but not a definition of how this is used and why this
>>>is a requirement. But please go ahead and come forward with a good
>>>definition of it and a good justification of it as a requirement. We
>>>can more concretely discuss about it then.
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>Rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>>>London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02
>>>To: Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>>>Cc: eman mailing list
>>>Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>Rolf,
>>>
>>>I do not know what you disagree on.
>>>
>>>Initially, some folks jumped on the bandwagon it is not useful in
>>>Energy Management.
>>>And then a clear example of a similar term from the IETF PoE MIB was
>>>shown.
>>>
>>>Now the question is definition of the term.
>>>
>>>I had mentioned in my email, that if it is a question of a clearer
>>>definition of the term, that can be provided.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Mouli
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PM
>>>To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>>>Cc: eman mailing list
>>>Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>Mouli,
>>>
>>>I disagree. There are people on the list that seem to disagree that
>>>importance and priority are the same concept. Just the word
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          importance
>>>
>>>
>>>            is utterly confusing. It could relate to security, cost,
>>>power-up or
>>>power-down priority etc. Somebody mentioned PoE and there I agree it
>>>is clearly defined. Importance is not. Let us first clearly define
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          how
>>>
>>>
>>>            it is used, then let’s make a requirement out of it in case
>>>the WG
>>>feels it should be. And let us not forget to make clear what it means
>>>in the context of EMAN.
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>Rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>>>London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              -----Original Message-----
>>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Behalf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              Of Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)
>>>Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 06:57
>>>To: Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>>>Cc: eman mailing list
>>>Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs, I think
>>>the value of importance is clearly illustrated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regarding Role, it is not intended to be an IANA registry.  This
>>>concept is already used by deployments.  Should not be dismissed as
>>>not useful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If the question is – clearer description of these terms, in the
>>>requirements draft, it is possible to provide some text and also
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          how
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              these concepts can be useful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Mouli
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Behalf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              Of Ira McDonald
>>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:15 PM
>>>To: Brad Schoening; Ira McDonald
>>>Cc: eman mailing list
>>>Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Brad - good precedent - because it makes the "importance"
>>>machine readable (and therefore useful).
>>>
>>>But since EMAN (and many other IETF WGs) have consistently backed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            away
>>>
>>>
>>>              from any standard definition of "role" (w/ behavior
>>>semantics that
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            are
>>>
>>>
>>>              predictable), a text string of "role" is useless (except
>>>in
>>>a
>>>vendor- or site-specific manner - out-of-scope IMHO).
>>>
>>>And I suggest that the "universe of things" is too diverse to lend
>>>itself to an IANA registry of standard "role" keywords.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>- Ira
>>>
>>>
>>>Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux
>>>Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working
>>>Group Co-Chair
>>>- IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>>>Chair
>>>- TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP &
>>>Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>>>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<http://sites.google.com/site/
>>>b
>>>l
>>>ueroofmusic>
>>><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site
>>>/
>>>h
>>>ighnorthinc<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
>>><http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto:[e-mail]
>>>m
>>>Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094 Summer  PO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            Box
>>>
>>>
>>>              221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <[e-mail]>
>>><mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Benoit,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a precedence for doing this on the device in the PoE MIB,
>>>rfc3621 which defines pethPsePortPowerPriority:
>>>
>>>   pethPsePortPowerPriority OBJECT-TYPE
>>>    SYNTAX INTEGER   {
>>>               critical(1),
>>>               high(2),
>>>               low(3)
>>>     }
>>>    MAX-ACCESS read-write
>>>    STATUS current
>>>    DESCRIPTION
>>>        "This object controls the priority of the port from the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          point
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                       of view of a power management algorithm.  The
>>>priority
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          that
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                       is set by this variable could be used by a
>>>control
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          mechanism
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                       that prevents over current situations by
>>>disconnecting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          first
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                       ports with lower power priority.  Ports that
>>>connect
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          devices
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                       critical to the operation of the network - like
>>>the E911
>>>         telephones ports - should be set to higher priority."
>>>    ::= { pethPsePortEntry 7 }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Brad Schoening
>>>e: [e-mail] ⟐ m: 917-304-7190
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              Redefining Storage Economics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
>>>To: eman mailing list <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>Subject: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear all,
>>>
>>>There is a discussion amongst the "EMAN requirements" authors right
>>>now about the notion of importance.
>>>We're trying to evaluate the requirements related to the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          "importance".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              The current draft version
>>><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            eman-
>>>
>>>
>>>              requirements-05>  only mentions:
>>>
>>>
>>>5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities
>>>
>>>   The energy management standard must provide means for retrieving
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            and
>>>
>>>
>>>                 reporting context information on powered entities, for
>>>example,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            tags
>>>
>>>
>>>                 associated with a powered entity that indicate the
>>>powered
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            entity's
>>>
>>>
>>>                 role, or importance.
>>>
>>>
>>>So there are no justifications why the importance is required.
>>>The people who want this, please provide some more
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>            text/justifications
>>>
>>>
>>>              Some extra questions:
>>>- Is this importance specific to EMAN or is this generic also for
>>>non Energy Objects?
>>>- Importance is important related to ...?
>>>
>>>Regards, Benoit (as a contributor for the EMAN-REQ)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>eman mailing list
>>>[e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>eman mailing list
>>>[e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>>
>>>
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>eman mailing list
>>>[e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>>
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>eman mailing list
>>>[e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>