Subject: [eman] new version of the battery MIB

From: Rolf Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:21:34 +0000

Hi,

we just published a new version of the battery MIB. We closed three open issues since there was no/not much discussion on them. These were:

Capacity reduction per time
Internal impedance
Wireless charging

This new version also includes fixes to comments made by Brad with a few exceptions. Below find my argumentation for not including the proposed changes or clarifications:

1. "the Battery MIB allows to monitor"	-> suggest "allows us to monitor"
[RW] I am an usually not a fan of using personal pronouns in technical writing. I rephrased to:
"the Battery MIB enables the monitoring of:"

2. "Not explicitly in scope of definitions in this document are very small
backup batteries'"	
Sec 3.1 MIB Module Structure
-->What "definition" is being referred to here?  The EMAN requirements?

[RW] I haven't touched that because the sentence clearly states the definitions in _this_ document, i.e. the managed object definitions.

3. "Battery type distinguished primary (not-rechargeable) batteries from secondary (rechargeable) batteries."

	-> this statement is correct, but it had worried me at first because the terms primary/secondary are not that
commonly used.   I think a sentence or two to explain primary cells and
secondary cells might be helpful here.

[RW] and the explanations in brackets are not sufficient?

Section 9.2  Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-eman-framework]Š  Silver, L.
	[I-D.ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib] .. Silver, L.

	-> You've swapped the town I reside in for my name.  It should be "Schoening, B."

[RW] this is auto-generated by xml2rfc. The bug seems to lie in the above documents. When you e.g. look at the end of draft-ietf-eman-framework-05 (the authors listing), the indentation is weird. My assumption is once that is fixed the auto-generation will do to right thing.

Best,

Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

---

From: Brad Schoening <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:07:07 -0500

Hi Rolf,

This looks great.  Thanks for reviewing my points. I have two followups on
issues #2 & #3, although these are quite small issues.  Also, I added a #4
which was missed.

[RW] I am an usually not a fan of using personal pronouns in technical
writing. I rephrased to:
"the Battery MIB enables the monitoring of:"

[BS] Good point.  You're rephrasing is much better.

[RW] I haven't touched that because the sentence clearly states the
definitions in _this_ document, i.e. the managed object definitions.

[BS] Ok, I see.  I was thinking 'definitions of terms' and you mean
'definitions of managed objects', I.e., MIB variables in section 4.
Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify what "very small" means.
Does this mean PC clock batteries, for example?

3. "Battery type distinguished primary (not-rechargeable) batteries from
secondary (rechargeable) batteries."
	-> this statement is correct, but it had worried me at first because the
terms primary/secondary are not that
commonly used.   I think a sentence or two to explain primary cells and
secondary cells might be helpful here.

[BS] It's a bit inconsistent and unclear; inconsistent because it uses
"primary"(…) then "...(secondary)".  It should be "primary (not
rechargeable)" & "secondary (rechargeable)" batteries.

Unclear because the enumeration types "primary" and "secondary" are not
commonplace terms while rechargeable is.  Adding something like
"Rechargeable batteries are termed secondary cells because their
electrochemical reactions are reversible.  Secondary or storage batteries
can be used, charged, and reused."

4. In Sec 3.1, it would be perhaps more correct to use other(1) instead of
powerSupply(6) for a battery kind of entity in entPhysicalTable. If a
managed entity already contains a powerSupply(6) entity, it might be
confusing to have a 2nd entity as powerSupply(6) for a battery.

Regards,

Brad Schoening

On 9/4/12 7:21 AM, "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>we just published a new version of the battery MIB. We closed three open
>issues since there was no/not much discussion on them. These were:
>
>This new version also includes fixes to comments made by Brad with a few
>exceptions. Below find my argumentation for not including the proposed
>changes or clarifications:
>
>[RW] I haven't touched that because the sentence clearly states the
>definitions in _this_ document, i.e. the managed object definitions.
>
>[RW] this is auto-generated by xml2rfc. The bug seems to lie in the above
>documents. When you e.g. look at the end of draft-ietf-eman-framework-05
>(the authors listing), the indentation is weird. My assumption is once
>that is fixed the auto-generation will do to right thing.
>
>
>Best,
>
>Rolf
>
>
>
>
>
>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>eman mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman