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

["Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[e-mail]>]

Power priority or Power shedding are focused on a single use case; whereas a concept of importance  is more general. 

 

It is another tag (post-it to borrow the term coined by Juergen S.); which can be useful other use cases. 

 

Thanks

Mouli

 

 

From: Benoit Claise (bclaise) 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:01 AM
To: Juergen Quittek
Cc: Brad Schoening; Rolf Winter; John Parello (jparello); Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

 

Hi Juergen,

Taking back your words:

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).

On one side, you want a mechanism not limited to a single case (which I agree with).
On the other side, you're ready to call it "power shedding", which limit this to a single use case.

To leads me to think that the generic term "importance" was maybe not perfect, but actually better as it took into account more use cases...

Regards, Benoit.



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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> 
			<mailto:[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/ <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			b <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			l <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			ueroofmusic> <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> <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> 
			<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]> 
			<mailto:[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]>  <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
			Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
			To: eman mailing list <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>  <mailto:[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- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			           eman- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			             requirements-05> <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