Re: [eman] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 09:56 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 AA3AA1A870A; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:56:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 IYZM9eBB15je; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047541A86E6; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:56:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4222; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418810212; x=1420019812; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UR874INtQd5RVjoBCLfTOkKu/X9F6VI69iXqMM5Ou4E=; b=j3FsWtBAdaBfPl1OYzkMp63ZUx9I39a/Tq/DXY9NJ9iatl6rRFB9kayR 2nEhU4BdCa6u0NcWAc5Cir57Z7SWScVOrQ0N6Vib52oqpm6FVQx9z11ib F4OtcMvDYlYrjxhE52KDef6bzYSPIz2x1e+Rm9s1ztWQp8ocYFxnT/YmQ c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai8FAMZSkVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABag1hYgwa5O4k+hXACgTEBAQEBAX2EDQEBBCMVNgoBEAsaAgUWBAcCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBBYgjDb4MlhwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXgSGNaQYRAVAHgmiBQQEEhSOMIoUygQswgi6CECGLHyKCMIE9PTABgQuBNwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,592,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="278086193"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2014 09:56:50 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBH9uoMw003103; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:56:50 GMT
Message-ID: <54915361.5060602@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:56:49 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20141203160628.24278.10846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141203160628.24278.10846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eman/jPG96B2ind2YD_fT0Mo3_1Uud-k
Cc: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement.all@ietf.org, eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>, Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [eman] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 17 Dec 2014 09:56:54 -0000
[including the document authors, and the EMAN mailing list. An issue with the "send-notices-to" has been fixed in the tracker] Regards, Benoit > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: 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 > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Section 9.2 -- > You have a bunch of references that lack citations to them, or for which > the citations are incorrect. "[DASH]" is in the references, for example, > but the citation is "[DSP0232]". You have two references for DSP1027, > and one incorrect citation for it. The reference for > [EMAN-MONITORING-MIB] has an incorrect document filename; the correct > name is "draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib". There are more. We > should not be shoving it at the RFC Editor to fix these; please take care > of this before the document is approved. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Minor comments that I hope you'll please consider: > > -- Section 1.2 -- > > The EMAN working group charter called for producing a series of > Internet standard drafts in the area of energy management. The > following drafts were created by the working group. > > I'm not fond of references in the RFCs to what the WG charter said. > Charters change and working groups go away, but RFCs are permanent. > Also, these are not "Internet Standard" as the IETF designates that, so > why not avoid misunderstandings? Also also, they will no longer be > drafts when they're published as RFCs. Simplifying to this should be > good: > > NEW > The EMAN work consists of the following Standards Track and > Informational documents in the area of energy management: > END > > On the [EMAN-AS] reference: it seems very odd for this document to have a > reference to itself. The list headings also aren't separated from the > explanatory text, which makes the list read oddly. I suggest doing it > this way, also using the complete titles of the documents: > > NEW > "Energy Management (EMAN) Applicability Statement" (this > document) presents use cases and scenarios for energy > management. In addition, other relevant energy standards > and architectures are discussed. > > "Requirements for Energy Management" [EMAN-REQ] presents > requirements of energy management and the scope of the > devices considered. > > "Energy Management Framework" [EMAN-FRAMEWORK] defines a > framework for providing energy management for devices > within or connected to communication networks, > > [...etc...] > END > > For the energy-aware MIB explanation, change "proposes" to "defines"; for > the battery MIB explanation, change "contains" to "defines". > > -- Section 1.4 -- > I find it odd that "energy management" or "energy control" seem always to > refer to a reduction in energy use. First, is there a reason there are > two terms? Second, I would think that energy management involves > adjusting the energy usage appropriately, whether that be up or down -- > turning the cooling up when necessary, as well as down when you can. So > I would say that energy management is desirable always... not just during > low utilization or high demand periods. > > -- Section 2.1 -- > ENTITY-MIB needs to cite [RFC6933]. > > > . >
- Re: [eman] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-em… Benoit Claise