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].
>
>
> .
>