IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [eman] Way forward for EMAN Framework

Ted Ghose <tghose@juniper.net> Thu, 03 October 2013 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tghose@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2834C21F8E3D for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OnIntcLsC4YG for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db8outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db8lp0189.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BD921F9FAC for <eman@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail148-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.235) by DB8EHSOBE024.bigfish.com (10.174.4.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:19:55 +0000
Received: from mail148-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail148-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41002A0348 for <eman@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:19:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -18
X-BigFish: VPS-18(zz98dI9371Ic857h1415Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah18c673h1de097h186068h1954cbh8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h839hbe3hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h2052h20f0h20b3m1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail148-db8: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=tghose@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(51414003)(24454002)(377454003)(36756003)(51856001)(49866001)(16236675002)(4396001)(83072001)(46102001)(53806001)(59766001)(77982001)(74366001)(47976001)(50986001)(47736001)(66066001)(81816001)(85306001)(81342001)(81542001)(80022001)(56776001)(74876001)(82746002)(74662001)(77096001)(54356001)(54316002)(31966008)(33656001)(74706001)(80976001)(76482001)(79102001)(69226001)(65816001)(81686001)(63696002)(16601075003)(15202345003)(15975445006)(74502001)(76796001)(83322001)(56816003)(76786001)(47446002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83716002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR05MB194; H:BL2PR05MB195.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.246.4; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail148-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail148-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 138075951966580_24495; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:18:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB8EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.247]) by mail148-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B5DC0343; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:18:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by DB8EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (10.174.4.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:18:33 +0000
Received: from BL2PR05MB194.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.198.147) by BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.359.1; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:18:31 +0000
Received: from BL2PR05MB195.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.198.149) by BL2PR05MB194.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.198.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.775.9; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:18:29 +0000
Received: from BL2PR05MB195.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.159]) by BL2PR05MB195.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.159]) with mapi id 15.00.0775.005; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:18:29 +0000
From: Ted Ghose <tghose@juniper.net>
To: Bruce Nordman <bnordman@lbl.gov>
Thread-Topic: [eman] Way forward for EMAN Framework
Thread-Index: AQHOv84VychinvmPnkevdxKxHYe+xw==
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:18:29 +0000
Message-ID: <C6C6EB33-0275-4AD7-B5BC-C4F2E871FBE9@juniper.net>
References: <CAK+eDP824y7W5h4=RFsqdKZ=P1r5smy8kffrM=i3MDE+WiOVUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK+eDP824y7W5h4=RFsqdKZ=P1r5smy8kffrM=i3MDE+WiOVUA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.246.4]
x-forefront-prvs: 09888BC01D
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C6C6EB3302754AD7B5BCC4F2E871FBE9junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%LBL.GOV$RO%1$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eman] Way forward for EMAN Framework
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:20:24 -0000

Why not fix the existing one rather starting a discussion on a new draft? Something I missed?

Thanks

-tg-
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 2, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Bruce Nordman <bnordman@lbl.gov<mailto:bnordman@lbl.gov>> wrote:

As my previous email noted, and as per Juergen Quittek's recent review
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/current/msg02007.html
there are still many many outstanding problems with the
current Framework draft.  This draft has been out for consideration
and evolving for over three years, so having so many outstanding
problems is troubling.  The the pace of improvement over these
years has been quite slow.  It seems unlikely that continuing on
the process of trying to fix this document will lead to it being
suitable as an RFC in a reasonable timeframe.  It would be better
to produce no result than to produce a substandard one.

That said, there are alternatives.  One good one is to use the
"Energy Reporting (ER) Framework" -- draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-01
-- as the basis for the framework work item from EMAN.  A key next
step is for that draft to receive critical review by EMAN participants
to directly compare it to the current EMAN Framework draft.  This
would productively move EMAN forward.

My assessment of the two is that the ER Framework:
* Is simpler to read and understand - for a variety of audiences
* Will be simpler to implement (for end devices and management systems)
* Lacks many ambiguities present in the EMAN Framework
* More fully and directly implements the EMAN Requirements
* Has features and capabilities not in the EMAN Framework
These all make it more suitable as an RFC and more likely to be
successful as a standard.

EMAN is not the only organization considering energy management
data models and so to be successful will need to be clearly superior
to alternatives.

I look forward to more detailed and productive discussion on the list.
Thank you,

--Bruce


--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov<http://nordman.lbl.gov>
BNordman@LBL.gov<mailto:BNordman@LBL.gov>
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org<mailto:eman@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email