Re: [eman] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-01.txt

[Bruce Nordman <[e-mail]>]

Juergen--

These are all good comments I can incorporate into the next version.
I look forward to review of this draft on the list by others to gather
additional useful input.

The only item I would disagree with is on metering topology.
One cannot meter power differently from how it is distributed.
Metering is something that occurs at a subset of points in
a power distribution topology, so it is an aspect of power
distribution, not separate.

Thanks,

--Bruce


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Juergen Quittek <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Bruce,
>
> I have reviewed the draft version -01.
>
> Indeed this framework is using a "keep it simple" approach.
> It needs less concepts and much less text than our current
> WG draft. The introduction of concepts in sections 2 and 3
> is amazingly easy to read (considering the lengthy and complex
> discussions we had on the "right" concepts).
>
> Even with a reduced number of concepts it is still complete.
> And it still meets (at least almost) all requirements as stated
> in our requirements draft (which has good chances to become
> RFC before IETF#87). How requirements are met is described
> for each requirement.
>
> Section 3
> This section give a good overview of power distribution and
> reporting topologies. It lacks a discussion of the metering
> topology. You list this as open issue #3 in section 8 and I think
> it is the most important of the open issues.
>
> Sections 4+5: purpose of the sections
> These sections serves two purposes at the same time.
> One is listing which requirements are met and how they are met.
> The other one is elaborating the framework and adding small
> features where needed to meet the requirements. This is not a
> straight forward approach, but the results seems to be compact
> and efficient.
>
> Sections 4+5: requirements and options
> There is a lack of clarity about requirements, recommendations
> and options in these two sections. It is often not clear which features
> are MANADATORY, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL, or something else,
> see the following examples:
>    Section 4.1: "a widely useful feature is ..."
>    Section 4.2: "the first item needed is ..."
>    Section 4.2: "will typically be of the form ..."
>    Section 4.3: "Each device provides a list of ..."
>    Section 4.4: "They can be represented  by ..."
> ... and so on.
> It would be helpful to state more clearly what the framework sees
> as MUST, SHOULD or MAY, respectively. The introductions of
> section 4 says the "basic" features are "required". If they are
> required it would be useful to clearly identify what is basic. It looks
> like even basic features have options. This does not mean that I
> disagree with the proposed features, but I would like to better
> understand which are essential and which not.
>
> Sections 4+5: data formats
> In section 4.2 you suggest using a string of the form "name=value".
> In section 5.1 you suggest using "type:value".
> I am not sure these two fit well together.
>
> Detailed comments:
> Section 4.2, line 4: "will typically" -> "can be"
> Section 5.1, line 3: ", with each having" -> ". They can have"
> Section 8.2, line 1: "Framework draft" -> "Framework and Battery MIB
> drafts"
>
> Cheers,
>     Juergen
>
>
>
>
> Looking at the open issues listed in section 8, there is one
> That I think is most essential:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Bruce Nordman
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2013 00:30
> > To: eman mailing list
> > Subject: [eman] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nordman-eman-er-
> > framework-01.txt
> >
> > I have updated the Energy Reporting Framework (ERF) draft that I posted
> last
> > week.
> >
> >
> > The -01 version:
> > --has some wording changes to clarify some points, --fixes reference
> > formatting,
> >
> > --adds brand and model fields to the basic data, and
> >
> > --adds and drops some outstanding issues.
> >
> > I believe that this document is the best one we have available that
> meets the
> > charter needs for the framework for EMAN.
> >
> >
> > Compared to content of draft-ietf-eman-framework-08, the ERF is
> >
> > simpler while having more capabilities, and so should be easier to
> implement
> > and use.  Compared to the presentation of draft-ietf-eman-framework-08,
> > the ERF is much shorter and I believe much more accessible to a variety
> of
> > audiences - which will be important for EMAN to be successful.
> >
> >
> > I look forward to comments on the list on how to improve this draft for a
> > version -02.  I am unable to be in Berlin but this draft will be
> presented there
> > and so I look forward to the minutes from the meeting and any
> > improvements to the draft that arise from that.
> >
> > (I will be off email the week of the IETF meeting).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > --Bruce
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:41 PM
> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-
> > 01.txt
> > To: Bruce Nordman <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-01.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Bruce Nordman and posted to the IETF
> > repository.
> >
> > Filename:        draft-nordman-eman-er-framework
> > Revision:        01
> > Title:           Energy Reporting Framework
> > Creation date:   2013-07-16
> > Group:           Individual Submission
> > Number of pages: 28
> > URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nordman-eman-er-
> > framework-01.txt
> > Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nordman-eman-er-
> > framework
> > Htmlized:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-
> > 01
> > Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nordman-eman-er-
> > framework-01
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    Managing energy consumption of devices presents new challenges and
> >    issues.  The EMAN Requirements draft identifies essential
> >    capabilities needed to accomplish this.  This draft describes how an
> >    energy management system can use EMAN to gather and interpret data
> >    from individual devices, and how some of the Requirements are
> >    implemented in the model.  This document focuses on Energy Reporting,
> >    though acknowledges and fully includes the limited control functions
> >    specified in the Requirements draft.  Topics addressed in detail
> >    include the topology of power distribution, reporting mechanisms, and
> >    the various roles of devices, power interfaces, and components.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Nordman
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> > nordman.lbl.gov
> > [e-mail]
> > 510-486-7089
> > m: 510-501-7943
>
>


-- 
*Bruce Nordman*
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
*nordman.lbl.gov*
[e-mail]
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943