Subject: [eman] (late) comments on the requirements document

From: Rolf Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:44:40 +0000

Hi,

sorry for a bunch of late comments. Most are smaller ones:

The term "Power State" stands out strangely since it is capitalized whereas most other terms are not. I would align this and not capitalize the term power state. It doesn't seem to be a new/special term that would require the capitalization.

In section 3.5 there is no bullet point for controlling power provided at power outles. This would be useful function I guess and I am sure is implemented in PDUs etc. Maybe adding a bullet point "controlling power provided at power outles" would make a lot of sense.

In section 5.2 second para, start of sentence need to begin with capital letter. Also the term entity and device seem to be used interchangeably. Maybe stick to device.

In section 5.3 "power characteristics" and "power parameters" seem to be used interchangeably. I seem to remember we wanted to stick to characteristics.

In section 5.3.5 you refer to an "entire entity". I think "device" would be the better term here. Also in section 6 I think the term entity should be replaced with device where appropriate. At least with the edits suggested before this would be consistent.

Isn't what 7.6 requires sometimes really hard to implement. E.g. how will you signal that a THD value is available at one of the meters measuring for you and not at another meter in the same power distribution tree?

Some of the appendix could move the main text. Since this is the requirements document and not a particular solution, the document could argue why or why not these standards do fulfill the requirements. An alternative is to remove some of this. In particular the entity MIB bit needs an update since it is under revision right now.

Best,

Rolf

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