Re: [eman] 2nd try: Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On May 12, 2015:6:06 AM, at 6:06 AM, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) <moulchan@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi  Brad,
> 
> I had replied earlier  that the EMAN use cases were compiled based on several WG meetings and comments or feedback on the email list. 
> 
> The feedback from Pete Resnick  was that the the specific use cases in question,  were not addressed in EMAN, and hence either mention "out of scope" or delete them. 
> 
> As suggested by Pete, we can mention that those use cases are out of scope. 
> 
> Thanks
> Mouli

	Yes, this was a specific suggestion and I think that the agreement was to indeed strike them from the draft to keep things consistent. 

	—Tom


> 
> 
> 
> From: Brad Schoening <brad.schoening@verizon.net <mailto:brad.schoening@verizon.net>>
> Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 9:02 AM
> To: "eman@ietf.org <mailto:eman@ietf.org>" <eman@ietf.org <mailto:eman@ietf.org>>, Mouli Chandramouli <moulchan@cisco.com <mailto:moulchan@cisco.com>>
> Subject: 2nd try: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
>> Hi Mouli,
>> 
>> Just wondering if you plan further updates to the applicability statement draft responding to the concerns raised, or if you would be ok deleting these specific use cases as not really being unique and non-overlapping.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Brad
>> 
>> On 4/26/2015 11:01 PM, Brad Schoening wrote:
>>> Mouli,
>>> 
>>> Your comments address the intent for adding these use cases, but they don't respond to the critique of them, and therefore don't justify them.  Can you please respond to Pete & Alissa's questions.  Otherwise, let's delete them as Bruce & I have suggested.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Brad
>>> 
>>> On 4/23/2015 9:45 PM, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) wrote:
>>>> Hi  Brian,
>>>> 
>>>> Some of the specific use cases, you are referring had been provided as feedback to WG (email or meetings)  when the draft was draft was presented. 
>>>> It was felt that it would be useful  "unique, non-overlapping" set of use cases (scenarios) of interest to energy management. 
>>>> It may be that after the other MIB drafts have evolved over the years, it may be that we solve only a subset of use cases. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Mouli
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net <mailto:brian@innovationslab.net>>
>>>> Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:35 AM
>>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>
>>>> Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:eman-chairs@ietf.org>" <eman-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:eman-chairs@ietf.org>>, "eman@ietf.org <mailto:eman@ietf.org>" <eman@ietf.org <mailto:eman@ietf.org>>
>>>> Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>> 
>>>>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss
>>>>> 
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope,
>>>>> especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This
>>>>> DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to
>>>>> delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero
>>>>> building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> eman mailing list
>>>>> eman@ietf.org <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> eman mailing list
>>>> eman@ietf.org <mailto:eman@ietf.org>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Brad Schoening 
>>> Email:
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Brad Schoening 
>> Email:
> _______________________________________________
> eman mailing list
> eman@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman