Re: [eman] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 and draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 17 January 2014 14:24 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9381AE0D6 for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.14
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YRpdW9gfhXzh for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8FF1AE0D1 for <eman@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:24:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11375; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389968658; x=1391178258; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=81S7qhNxnVv5KBPFRg1XrmRAbHJFoGD4DlXYlZoNIhc=; b=AK3ltTKthyolH7TW/s7hzPs4Wn5Brz6qU58SdU2xsUhaLknbk2QIOvaC 5w9BKkT1+u6p0Or0yoMFhuRDPvsWHcsatUL8Egv+T1FPEQrKzRdVb59iL rsIF1cCKGBEV3HmesCacmsbYduwTI1nEMNxRe+HzudYm8l7lZFLzLOAgY 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAFAJFf2FKQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABWA4MLOLtngQ8WdIImAQEEAQEBGhs2BAYRCwcaFgQLCQMCAQIBFTAGAQwGAgEBiAANxTQXjh0RAQI+FxGEJwSUO4NmgTGFFYtRgW+BPzuBNQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,670,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="3773839"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2014 14:24:16 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0HEOFjd001220; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:24:15 GMT
Message-ID: <52D93D0F.9000109@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:24:15 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Luchuk <luchuk@snmp.com>, eman@ietf.org
References: <201312301853.NAA03279@adminfs.snmp.com>
In-Reply-To: <201312301853.NAA03279@adminfs.snmp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [eman] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 and draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:24:34 -0000
Dear Alan, Let me answer your comments on the draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib. The ones on draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib will follow in a separate email. > Hello, > > Here are comments about draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 and > draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13. Due to the holidays, I was unable > to get these sent to the WG E-mail list sooner. > > > Regarding draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13: > ---------------------------------------------- > > Section 5, Page 6: > > The UML on Page 6 _looks_ incorrect. It _looks_ like the eoRelationTable > is subordinate to, or a child of, the eoEntry. I'm not sure how the > actual relationship specified in the MIB is _supposed_ to be represented > in UML. Good catch. Corrected. > > > Page 22: > > The eoRelationID in the eoRelationTable is "read-only". In many cases, > I do not see how an energy object can determine the eoRelationID to the > Energy Objects to which it is connected, so I _think_ the eoRelationID > must be configured by the EnMS. I _think_ the eoRelationID should be > a read-write object like the eoRelationship object. Yes, that's an obvious mistake. Thinking about it some more, I believe that we need a rowStatus textual convention in order to create new entries in there. > > As an example, consider a manageable, metering power distribution > unit (PDU), I don't see how it can autodiscover and populate the > eoRelationID of the energy objects to which it is connected. The useful- > ness of the eoRelationID MIB object is reduced if it is only populated > in devices where it can be autodiscovered. > > > Regarding draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08: > --------------------------------------------------- > > Section 5, 3rd paragraph, Page 6: > > "entity4CRCompliance. This compliance requires that the > following 3 MIB objects from ENTITY-MIB [RFC6933] > (entPhysicalIndex, entPhysicalName and entPhysicalUUID) MUST be > implemented." > > I think entPhysicalClass should be included in this list. There are > other references to the entity4CRCompliance in this draft that need the > same update. Good catch. Also corrected in the draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib Regards, Benoit > > > Section 5, Page 7: > > | +-- r-n INTEGER eoMeasurementCaliber(5) > > I think the above should be eoPowerMeasurementCaliber(5). > > | +-- r-n Interger32 eoPowerStateMaxPower(2) > > Change "Interger32" to Integer. > > | +-- r-n Integer32 eoEnergyParametersIntervalMode(5) > > I think the type of "eoEnergyParametersIntervalMode" should be INTEGER. > > > Section 5, Page 8: > > I suggest changing "powerAttributesMIB" to "POWER-ATTRIBUTES-MIB" for > for consistency with previous text that references the ENERGY-OBJECT-MIB > and POWER-ATTRIBUTES-MIB. > > A quick summary of the function of each of the tables in the POWER- > ATTRIBUTES-MIB, similar to the quick summary of each of the tables in > the ENERGY-OBJECT-MIB (on Page 6) might be helpful and consisent. > > > | +-- r-n Interger32 eoACPwrAttributesAvgVoltage(2) > > | +-- r-n Interger32 > | eoACPwrAttributesTotalActivePower(7) > > Change "Interger32" to Integer. > > In the diagram for the eoACPwrAttributesEntry, after eoACPwrAttributes- > ThdAmpheres, the eoACPwrAttributesThdVoltage object is missing. > > Also, here, and several places in the document, "Ampheres" is referenced. > Not sure if "Ampheres" is intentional, but "Amperes" might be preferable. > It might be good to do a case-insensitive search for "ampheres". > > > Section 5, Page 9: > > +-- eoACPwrAttributesDelPhaseEntry(1) > | | [entPhysicalIndex, eoPhaseIndex] > | | > | +-- r-n Integer32 > | | eoACPwrAttributesDelPhaseToNextPhaseVoltage(1) > | +-- r-n Integer32 > | | eoACPwrAttributesDelThdPhaseToNextPhaseVoltage(2) > | +-- r-n Integer32 > eoACPwrAttributesDelThdCurrent(3) > > I think the column numbers 1, 2, and 3, are incorrect. The actual column > numbers in the MIB are 2, 3, and 4. Perhaps the MIB table should be fixed > so the column numbers are 1, 2, and 3. > > > Section 5, Page 12. > > At the very top, in the diagram for the eoACPwrAttributesEntry, after > eoACPwrAttributesThdAmpheres, the eoACPwrAttributesThdVoltage object > is missing. > > > Section 5.4, Page 15: > > I suggest changing "powerAttributesMIB" to "POWER-ATTRIBUTES-MIB" for > for consistency with previous text that references the ENERGY-OBJECT-MIB > and POWER-ATTRIBUTES-MIB. > > > Section 6, Page 20: > > This section references the EMAN-MON-MIB. I think this should be > ENERGY-OBJECT-MIB. > > > Section 9, Page 27: > > This section references the "energyObjectMIBObject". Not sure what this > is. > > > In the MIBs, adding eye-catching comments between the tables would ease > visually identifying where each MIB table begins. > > > Page 37, "eoPowerOperState" MIB object: > > The second paragraph of the DESCRIPTION clause reads: "Possible values > of eoPowerAdminState...". I think "eoPowerAdminState" should be changed > to "eoPowerOperState." > > > Page 38, "eoPowerStateTable": > > The text reads: > > This table has an expansion-dependent relationship on the > eoPowerTable, containing rows describing each Power State > for the corresponding Energy Object. For every Energy > Object in the eoPowerTable, there is a corresponding > entry in this table." > > Not sure I correctly understand this table, but should the second sentence > read something like: "For every Energy Object in the eoPowerTable, there > is a corresponding set of entries in this table, one entry for each power > state supported by the Energy Object." > > > Page 38, "eoPowerStateEntry": > > In the DESCRIPTION clause, the state numbers and state names do not match > any documented enumerations for the IANAPowerStateSet textual convention. > Should the existing values be replaced with: > > eman(1024), -- indicates EMAN set > emanmechoff(1025), > emansoftoff(1026), > emanhibernate(1027), > emansleep(1028), > emanstandby(1029), > emanready(1030), > emanlowMinus(1031), > emanlow(1032), > emanmediumMinus(1033), > emanmedium(1034), > emanhighMinus(1035), > emanhigh(1036) > > > Page 45, "eoEnergyStored": > > The first sentence of the DESCRIPTION clause reads: > > "This object indicates the resultant of the energy consumed..." > > Perhaps the following text would be clearer: > > "This object indicates the difference of the energy consumed..." > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Page 46, "eoEnergyMaxConsumed": > > The DESCRIPTION text reads: > > "This object is the maximum energy ever observed in > eoEnergyConsumed since the monitoring started. This value > is specified in the common billing units of watt-hours > with the magnitude of watt-hours (kW-Hr, MW-Hr, etc.) > indicated separately in eoEnergyUnitMultiplier." > > Does this mean that the eoEnergyMaxConsumed value must be retained > across reboots, and thus must be stored in non-volatile memory? > > > Page 48/49/54, where "entity4CRCompliance" is listed: > > I believe the "entPhysicalClass" object must be added to the lists of > MIB objects (entPhysicalIndex, entPhysicalName and entPhysicalUUID). > > > Page 56, "eoACPwrAttributesAvgCurrent": > > It might be niced to expand the DESCRIPTION clause so that it more > precisely specifies the significance of this, perhaps similar to the > DESCRIPTION clause for "eoACPwrAttributesAvgVoltage". > > > Page 56, "eoACPwrAttributesFrequency": > > The UNITS clause does not match the comment after the SYNTAX clause. > > eoACPwrAttributesFrequency OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX Integer32 (4500..6500) -- UNITS 0.01 Hertz > UNITS "hertz" > > > Would it be useful or helpful to have UnitsMultiplier companion objects for > the following objects? > > Page 58, "eoACPwrAttributesThdAmpheres": > Page 60, "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseAvgCurrent": > Page 62, "eoACPwrAttributesDelPhaseToNextPhaseVoltage": > Page 63, "eoACPwrAttributesWyePhaseToNeutralVoltage": > Page 64, "eoACPwrAttributesWyePhaseCurrent": > > > Page 59, "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseEntry": > > Under the DESCRIPTION clause, it might be helpful to add a comment that > indicates the phase-to-phase voltages are in separate tables. > > When I first encountered the "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseEntry", I wondered > about the voltages until I read further in the MIB and found the > eoACPwrAttributesDelPhaseTable and the eoACPwrAttributesWyePhaseTable. > > > > Page 60, "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseActivePower", > "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseReactivePower", > "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseApparentPower": > > Expanding the DESCRIPTION clauses to note these are scaled by the > eoACPwrAttributesPowerUnitMultiplier might be helpful, but the > DESCRIPTION clause for the "eoACPwrAttributesPowerUnitMultiplier" > does note this scaling relationship. > > > Page 61, "eoACPwrAttributesPhaseImpedance": > > Are the UNITS of "volt-amperes" correct? > > > > Page 62/63, "eoACPwrAttributesDelPhaseToNextPhaseVoltage", > "eoACPwrAttributesDelThdPhaseToNextPhaseVoltage", > "eoACPwrAttributesDelThdCurrent": > > The last SID values for these objects are 2, 3, and 4, which distinctly > does NOT match the values shown in the figure on Page 9, which shows > the last SID values as 1, 2, and 3. > > > Page 74, Section 13: > > [EMAN-AWARE-MIB] J. Parello, B. Claise and M. Chandramoili, > "draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-11 ", work in > progress, November 2013. > > Does it matter, or should this reference draft 13, > draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13? > > > Regards, > --Alan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Alan Luchuk SNMP Research, Inc. Voice: +1 865 573 1434 > Senior Software Engineer 3001 Kimberlin Heights Road FAX: +1 865 573 9197 > luchuk at snmp.com Knoxville, TN 37920-9716 http://www.snmp.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman > . >
- Re: [eman] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-eman-energ… Alan Luchuk
- Re: [eman] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-eman-energ… Benoit Claise
- Re: [eman] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-eman-energ… Brad Schoening