[eman] @Chairs : Liaison work with ETSI

"John Parello (jparello)" <jparello@cisco.com> Thu, 31 October 2013 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jparello@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA51E21E812F for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.509
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMQCx1whyLdD for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF1F11E80F7 for <eman@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1099; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383263552; x=1384473152; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hiv/8Zthvb4arRD3NlueQWuANktNornJzJGvz6VMMNk=; b=aRRotHD4zL/2os3DNOt6g7ps/NKrNpPpst9GFuDuVrzhlOko2iTQgkAp zKRT11VqT7LVxVzVo6vzabmqxMRcuFjSV6CQQqnQ6fJAyL7FGY2oqh1kd onpGkfkfYNuAfs0qCAEuISesHNKWJ3jYUdZdXmHOHC5O6Rf6MnsXzrfyp U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQHAH/sclKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABPCoMHgQy/aIEjFm0HgicBBDpRASoUQiYBBBsSh2wBmwihZY4MC4EHg1iBDgOqE4Mmgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,613,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="279251967"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 23:52:31 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9VNqUFg015579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <eman@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:52:30 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:52:30 -0500
From: "John Parello (jparello)" <jparello@cisco.com>
To: "eman@ietf.org" <eman@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: @Chairs : Liaison work with ETSI
Thread-Index: Ac7WlEXoUOOAh1/dSyiO6N2UoxErlQ==
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:52:29 +0000
Message-ID: <9C213D38848B89428F46808B16F6F0860167CDB2@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [eman] @Chairs : Liaison work with ETSI
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: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:52:37 -0000

Hi Chairs,

Benoit and I had a call with some of the members of (European Telecommunication Standards Institute) ETSI who are working on the Green Abstraction Layer. (GAL) This was w.r.t. our liaison with them.

I don't know all of the procedures with a liaison etc but we met to make sure the work was aligned.

We reviewed their GAL spec and they intern reviewed the framework. The good news was there was a lot of synergy. We gave four items that they could (and did) incorporate in their draft. So that was a good vote on our approach

They incorporated 4 items:

1) (GAL) Resource ID would map to (EMAN) RFC 4133
2) (GAL) Power measurement would have a (EMAN) value and exponent
3) (GAL) Power measurement would include (EMAN) caliber
4) (GAL) Two-dimensional Power States would map to an (EMAN) array of states 

For us that means we can identify, report power, and use states in a similar way that won't clash semantically.

I'm not sure what to answer further to the groups so what do the chairs and AD think is the next steps?