Subject: [eman] draft-tychon-eman-applicability-statement-02: review

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:26:41 +0200

Dear authors,

Thanks for your draft.

Some feedback.
- the draft would benefit from consistent terminology. Actually, all 
drafts in the WG would benefit from this. I guess it will be one of the 
main points during our meeting.
- Small editorial note, IETF draft don't use "we", "our", etc...
- sentences such as "Energy Management can be implemented by extending 
existing SNMP support to the EMAN specific MIBs to deal with energy 
reporting."
     The charter mentions: "The EMAN WG will develop an applicability 
statement, describing the variety of applications that can use the 
energy framework and associated MIB modules."
     So you can take as granted that the framework and the associated 
MIB modules are developed.
     I understand that this is a difficult task: on one side, the WG 
asked you to put all the use cases in the EMAN applicability statement 
in order to create the framework, and on the other side, you must assume 
that the draft has a framework already ;-)
     So let me focus only on the "section 2 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tychon-eman-applicability-statement-02#section-2>. 
Scenarios and Target devices" and "3. Use case patterns" in the rest of 
the email
- I don't really understand this text and the relation to the title

          2.4. Mid-level managers

             This use case describes the scenario of devices that receive power
             supply from one source. The reporting of power measurement and
             possibly control can be performed by some other entity.

- I don't really understand the section 2.7. Data center devices. It 
seems to be a mix of smart PDU (already covered), HVAC, and hierarchy of 
switches.
"The switch can be the aggregator for the power consumption of the data 
center." How would the switches communicate with the PDUs?
- "Scenario 8: Battery powered devices" would certainly need its own 
section.
- section 3. Use case patterns. You might want to express that the draft 
does certainly not cover all the use cases.
Hence, you wanted to extract the use case patterns. And that some other 
use cases that match the pattern should be covered as well.

Bottom line, even they can be improved, I like the sections 2 and 3.

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)