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

[Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>]

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/blueroofmusic>
> > http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> > <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
> > mailto:[e-mail]
> > 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]>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > Description: Coraid+Logo_reallysmall <http://www.coraid.com/>
> > Redefining Storage Economics
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
> > To: eman mailing list <[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-
> 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]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
> >
> >