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: eman-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] 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: eman-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] 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/blueroofmusic>
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
> mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com
> 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 <brads@coraid.com>
> 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: brads@coraid.com ⟐ m: 917-304-7190
> 
> 
> 
> Description: Coraid+Logo_reallysmall <http://www.coraid.com/>
> Redefining Storage Economics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
> To: eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
> 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-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
> eman@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
> 
> 