Re: [eman] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 and draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13

Hi Brad,

Thanks for considering my comments on Energy Monitoring MIB.

I've replied inline to your remaining questions below.

Cheers,
- Ira

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Brad Schoening <brads@coraid.com> wrote:

>   Hi Ira,
>
>  Thanks so much for your detailed and very specific feedback on the
> Energy Monitoring MIB.  It was a huge help.  I have corrected or changed 65
> of the 70 issues you raised.  For the few remainders, my comments are below
>
>  #52 - this is explained on page 16 (sec 5.7) and mentions "The choices
> of the three different modes of collection are based on IEC standard
> 61850-7-4" as a reference for further details.
>

<ira> OK </ira>

>
>  #54 - for a 15 minute measurement interval, unity, in units of seconds
> seconds seemed the only appropriate default
>

<ira> OK </ira>

>
>  #55 - we felt offline information would be stale and could be deleted
>

<ira> OK </ira>

>
>  #60 - the issue in question here wasn't clear to me
> (60) Page 49 (ambiguity)
> - please explain why only 'read-create' and 'read-only' are
> described, but 'read-write' is not described (useful for
> statically allocated tables, using 'notInService' for a toggle)
>

<ira>
You define read-create compliance in "energyObjectMIBFullCompliance"
and read-only compliance in "energyObjectMIBReadOnlyCompliance".
In my experience, tables w/ RowStatus can be implemented more easily
(sometimes) with pre-allocated static rows that can simply be turned on
and off by read-write access (but not created or destroyed - the tricky bits
to get right).

Given strong pushback against read-write access, I withdraw my comment.
</ira>

>  #69 - I'm not sure about this issue and could use more detail
> (69) Page 72 (unsafe allocation of new MIB objects)
> - please explain why Expert Review (rather than a new RFC)
> is allowed for defining new MIB objects - seems inherently unsafe
> (in section 13 IANA Considerations)
>

<ira>
Defining new standards-track MIB objects (not just values) by Expert Review
(rather than a new RFC) has two drawbacks:

(1) Subverts the spirit of standards track data models, I think.
(2) Results in surprising, unexpected objects retrieved by SNMP Managers
using a MIB walk approach - which can yield confusing error messages in
logs and presented to operators.

But my comment is obsolete, because the questionable text has been
removed in the current draft-09 version.

However, shouldn't IANA Considerations address the use of Expert Review
(for example) to define new values of existing MIB objects?
</ira>

>
>   From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:58:36 -0500
> To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Ira McDonald <
> blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
> Cc: eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [eman] WG Last Call for
> draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 and
> draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13
>
>   Hi Thomas,
>
>  Ahem - I did send the attached extensive comments on the Energy
> Monitoring MIB
> three days ago to the EMAN mailing list.
>
>  Cheers,
>  - Ira
>
>
>  Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
> 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, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>         WG,
>>
>>         This concludes the WG LC on the MIBs. We have received just one
>> set of comments from the WG and one set of comments regarding the OID
>> numbering. Would the document editors please address these and republish
>> the drafts ASAP so that we can proceed with progressing the drafts?
>>
>>         Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>>
>>         Tom
>>
>>
>> >
>> >       As agreed at the last WG meeting, with the EMAN Framework
>> completing its WG LC the chairs would like to initiate a WG LC on
>> draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-08 and
>> draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-13.  The WG LC will end on Dec 30 at 8AM
>> EDT.
>> >
>> >       Thank you,
>> >
>> >       Nevil and Tom
>> >
>> >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>> > eman mailing list
>> > eman@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eman mailing list
>> eman@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>>
>>
>  _______________________________________________ eman mailing list
> eman@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>