Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS)

"Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Wed, 22 April 2015 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 CEF481B3AE2; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 rkHKm2RlbVDN; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (unknown [50.255.148.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FE21B3ADC; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (unknown [50.255.148.181]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C372A3328E76; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <55381EFD.60400@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:40:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CAA9951B-0E91-4550-A582-3C52FDE51747@lucidvision.com>
References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> <DBA94551-493C-4FFD-8C9F-49D9A3D2351C@nostrum.com> <FC8494B3-6774-4E9F-B04C-5483F75E8061@lucidvision.com> <55381EFD.60400@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eman/hFGA5p4uLsaT76a4XsV1AIHXZ5w>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS)
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:40:19 -0000

	Cool. If that is the case, then I’d like to direct the document editors to make this change ASAP and re-spin
the draft. 

	—Tom


> On Apr 22, 2015:6:21 PM, at 6:21 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/04/15 23:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>>> " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may have similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this document. There may be additional privacy considerations specific to each use case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. “
>> 	This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP MIBs.
>> 
>> 	Would this fix resolve Stephen’s comments as well?
> 
> Basically, yes. I think a truth-in-advertising statement like that
> would be useful.
> 
> Thanks,
> S.
>