Subject: [eman] News from the IESG

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:27:51 +0200

Good ones actually - the IESG approved in the telechat today to send the
proposed charter for eman (with some edits) to external IETF review. 

The main edits (there are a couple of editorial things also) are in
section 2. Some of the IESG members were concerned buy the fact that the
framework seemed to broad and was not clear enough that the focus of the
work is on IP-networks devices. It was also mentioned that the case of
low resourced and lossy networks devices is not explicitly mentioned. So
you will see text improvements addressing these issues. They are not
spectacular, they seem to me to be in the spirit of what you are already
doing, so I hope that you can accommodate all these. 

There was also a question whether the WG is interested to update the UPS
MIB (RFC 1628) or to discuss its transition to Historical. Please
address this - it would be possibly within the scope, but you need of
course willing resources for this. 

You should see the external review announcement soon. 

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:27:56 +0000

Hi Dan,

Here is a suggestion for covering one of the issues that you raised
On the current version of the charter.

On 09.09.10 19:27  "Dan Romascanu" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> low resourced and lossy networks devices is not explicitly mentioned.

For mentioning low resourced and lossy network devices I would suggest
extending the third paragraph:

OLD 3rd paragraph:
   A particular difference between energy management and other management
   tasks is that in some cases energy consumption of a device is not
   measured at the device itself but reported by a different place. For
   example, at a Power over Ethernet (PoE) sourcing device or at a smart
   power strip, in which cases one device is effectively metering another
   remote device. This requires a clear definition of the relationship
   between the reporting devices and identification of remote devices for
   which monitoring information is provided. Similar considerations will
   apply to power state control of remote devices, for example, at a PoE
   sourcing device that switches on and off power at its ports.

NEW 3rd paragraph (text appended at the end of it):
   A particular difference between energy management and other management
   tasks is that in some cases energy consumption of a device is not
   measured at the device itself but reported by a different place. For
   example, at a Power over Ethernet (PoE) sourcing device or at a smart
   power strip, in which cases one device is effectively metering another
   remote device. This requires a clear definition of the relationship
   between the reporting devices and identification of remote devices for
   which monitoring information is provided. Similar considerations will
   apply to power state control of remote devices, for example, at a PoE
   sourcing device that switches on and off power at its ports. Another
   example scenario for energy management is a gateway to low resourced
   and lossy network devices in wireless a building network. Here the
   energy management system talks directly to the gateway but not to
   other devices in the building network.

Best regards,

    Juergen

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:28:19 +0200

This looks fine to me, but as we are in external review (visible to all
IETF) I suggest that you make the comment on the IETF list. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:28 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [eman] News from the IESG
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Here is a suggestion for covering one of the issues that you 
> raised On the current version of the charter.
> 
> 
> > Good ones actually - the IESG approved in the telechat 
> today to send 
> > the proposed charter for eman (with some edits) to external 
> IETF review.
> > 
> > section 2. Some of the IESG members were concerned buy the 
> fact that 
> > the framework seemed to broad and was not clear enough that 
> the focus 
> > of the work is on IP-networks devices. It was also 
> mentioned that the 
> > case of low resourced and lossy networks devices is not 
> explicitly mentioned.
> 
> For mentioning low resourced and lossy network devices I 
> would suggest extending the third paragraph:
> 
> OLD 3rd paragraph: