From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 2 14:07:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A32A21F8E5D; Thu, 2 May 2013 14:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8gxqzNT3f7i; Thu, 2 May 2013 14:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC71521F8AD1; Thu, 2 May 2013 14:07:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.44.p4 Message-ID: <20130502210752.22342.51065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:07:52 -0700 Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-requirements-14.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 21:07:53 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Energy Management Working Group of the IE= TF. Title : Requirements for Energy Management Author(s) : Juergen Quittek Mouli Chandramouli Rolf Winter Thomas Dietz Benoit Claise Filename : draft-ietf-eman-requirements-14.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2013-05-02 Abstract: This document defines requirements for standards specifications for energy management. The requirements defined in this document concern monitoring functions as well as control functions. Monitoring functions include identification of energy-managed devices and their components, monitoring of their power states, power inlets, power outlets, actual power (the instantaneous power, as opposed to the demand, which is an averaged power), power attributes, received energy, provided energy, and contained batteries. Control functions serve for controlling power supply and power state of energy-managed devices and their components. This document does not specify the features that must be implemented by compliant implementations but rather features that must be supported by standards for energy management. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-requirements There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-14 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-eman-requirements-14 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Sun May 12 22:27:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CDF21F8F4F for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:27:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bSlvggQdiyg6 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6988F21F8ECA for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38141 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UblIG-00057U-0L; Mon, 13 May 2013 07:27:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, bnordman@lbl.gov X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 05:27:27 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/35 Message-ID: <055.a739eed8fef5e361e6d012f61a6eb41c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 35 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, bnordman@lbl.gov, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bclaise@cisco.com, bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, jparello@cisco.com, quittek@netlab.nec.de Resent-Message-Id: <20130513052742.6988F21F8ECA@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] #35: Clarify how relationship model and power interface model X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 05:27:43 -0000 #35: Clarify how relationship model and power interface model Describe how a device could implement the relationships model, the power interface model, both, or neither. Ensure that each case is well and sufficiently described. Describe how EMAN works when a device supplies another device and they implement different models. Bruce to propose new or modified text in several sections to address power interface model portion of this ticket. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman- bnordman@lbl.gov | framework@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: Active WG | Keywords: Document | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 13 11:10:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D3A21F90EB for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:10:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mLNeigEjyhjK for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865721F90C1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37338 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UbxCi-0006Ee-51; Mon, 13 May 2013 20:10:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:10:32 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/29#comment:2 Message-ID: <079.1083a93812648b4d8c038c747c5cca13@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <064.716466cc60ff414a38d13249506e9ab3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 29 In-Reply-To: <064.716466cc60ff414a38d13249506e9ab3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bclaise@cisco.com, bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, jparello@cisco.com, quittek@netlab.nec.de Resent-Message-Id: <20130513181036.9865721F90C1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #29: IANA Considerations section needs more detail X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:10:37 -0000 #29: IANA Considerations section needs more detail Comment (by jparello@cisco.com): Benoit to take this for 5/21 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman- n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz | framework@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: blocker | Milestone: milestone1 Component: framework | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 13 11:14:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3410721F9050 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:14:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ssl5fctV7n8W for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD0121F915B for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37692 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UbxGX-0002zK-53; Mon, 13 May 2013 20:14:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:14:29 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/31#comment:1 Message-ID: <072.1153767ca0f2fd3165aaf85b77a5ae26@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.ccb90ad9c9aa4c2bd5890f771e3fe09a@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 31 In-Reply-To: <057.ccb90ad9c9aa4c2bd5890f771e3fe09a@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130513181437.4CD0121F915B@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #31: Clarify what is optional to implment in the UML X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:14:40 -0000 #31: Clarify what is optional to implment in the UML Comment (by jparello@cisco.com): """ Note that although partially generated from the attached XML documents, the main body of this document is normative while the appendices are informational. """ -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 13 11:27:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F0121F9408 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:27:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZC00ECcCDK86 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2536921F90CD for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38307 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UbxSo-0006pX-7D; Mon, 13 May 2013 20:27:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, b.hedstrom@cablelabs.com, jparello@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:27:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/34#comment:2 Message-ID: <072.7d6e6f473a0e26e2c64488320e3dbdc5@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.ae094a4745fdf78624bbf6e4564985ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 34 In-Reply-To: <057.ae094a4745fdf78624bbf6e4564985ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, b.hedstrom@cablelabs.com, jparello@cisco.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130513182724.2536921F90CD@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #34: Indicate how indexing and modeling of battery cells is done X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:27:25 -0000 #34: Indicate how indexing and modeling of battery cells is done Comment (by jparello@cisco.com): jparello - perhaps a seperate battery power state set that we list in the draft. Make a note and refer to battery that we are not proposing a set as yet INTEGER { unknown(1), charging(2), fastCharging(3), maintainingCharge(4), noCharging(5), discharging(6) batteryChargingAdminState OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { charging(2), fastCharging(3), maintainingCharge(4), noCharging(5), discharging(6), notSet(7) } -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From bclaise@cisco.com Tue May 14 03:41:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605D521F8EA6 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PVLliQJWsJgw for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A9C21F8E75 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:41:30 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4EAfTnC024117 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 12:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4EAfDN5023335 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 12:41:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <519214C9.8060609@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:41:13 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: eman mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090507060608000800010306" Subject: [eman] battery-mib and entity-mib reference X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:41:35 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090507060608000800010306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear battery-mib authors, I see: If there is an implementation of the Entity MIB module [RFC4133 ] that identifies the batteries to be reported on by individual values for managed object entPhysicalIndex, then it is REQUIRED that these values are used as index values for the batteryTable. You should reference the RFC4133bis, draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06 . Btw, this draft is right now in AUTH48. Regards, Benoit --------------090507060608000800010306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear battery-mib authors,

I see:
   If there is an implementation of the Entity MIB module [RFC4133] that
   identifies the batteries to be reported on by individual values for
   managed object entPhysicalIndex, then it is REQUIRED that these
   values are used as index values for the batteryTable.
You should reference the RFC4133bis, draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06.
Btw, this draft is right now in AUTH48.

Regards, Benoit
--------------090507060608000800010306-- From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:00:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026A921F966B for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1cAOCh8n0H9 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5964721F9669 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36546 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZ3a-0007lx-TH; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:59:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:59:54 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/33#comment:1 Message-ID: <072.fbc0458d2035d52f9139182a6841f318@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.5c0bb468d0e6002a930b5efaed93f3f3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 33 In-Reply-To: <057.5c0bb468d0e6002a930b5efaed93f3f3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130520230003.5964721F9669@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #33: Rename context information X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:00:04 -0000 #33: Rename context information Comment (by jparello@cisco.com): Can be closed we will keep context -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:05:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7929821F95EB for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hHt7jHgKN2mi for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF1D21F93E8 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37245 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZ9I-00049H-4w; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:05:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:05:48 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://grenache.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/30#comment:3 Message-ID: <079.826eee18156e8d3030b30b380e733280@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <064.8f201006117e8f657bd861e1408c12db@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 30 In-Reply-To: <064.8f201006117e8f657bd861e1408c12db@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bclaise@cisco.com, bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, jparello@cisco.com, quittek@netlab.nec.de Resent-Message-Id: <20130520230552.7AF1D21F93E8@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #30: Power State and Power State Sets introduction X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:05:54 -0000 #30: Power State and Power State Sets introduction Comment (by jparello@cisco.com): - removed powered devices and used receve / supply per comment - removed modes everywhere - Section 4.6 now introduces the concept renames to "Control and Power States" propose to close -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman- n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz | framework@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1 Component: framework | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:08:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D295421F9678 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAvnMSsVPZNP for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B2321F95EB for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37268 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZBa-0002yh-An; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:08:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, b.hedstrom@cablelabs.com, jparello@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:08:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://grenache.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/34#comment:3 Message-ID: <072.0278c7c3d64e2e15da8f08665b021841@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.ae094a4745fdf78624bbf6e4564985ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 34 In-Reply-To: <057.ae094a4745fdf78624bbf6e4564985ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, b.hedstrom@cablelabs.com, jparello@cisco.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130520230823.21B2321F95EB@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #34: Indicate how indexing and modeling of battery cells is done X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:08:24 -0000 #34: Indicate how indexing and modeling of battery cells is done Comment (by jparello@cisco.com): Added a not that we could but are not doing this per BC. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue May 21 19:35:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BF121F9216 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZdRCs04Dc4xo for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847B421F8F12 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40521 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeytE-0006P0-HT; Wed, 22 May 2013 04:34:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:34:56 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/28#comment:2 Message-ID: <072.fbe7758eb13dea940715204029996042@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.dbd6944b8f5806e048437d9d1a1d8708@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 28 In-Reply-To: <057.dbd6944b8f5806e048437d9d1a1d8708@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130522023501.847B421F8F12@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #28: Ensure information in deleted section req and use cases in other documents X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:35:02 -0000 #28: Ensure information in deleted section req and use cases in other documents Changes (by n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: fixed statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue May 21 19:35:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D3C21F930A for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GOPe4yq107JA for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A5821F920E for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40581 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ueytz-0003TQ-78; Wed, 22 May 2013 04:35:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:35:43 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/33#comment:2 Message-ID: <072.6fad6bc60ab2859bdb22051cea592e6c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.5c0bb468d0e6002a930b5efaed93f3f3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 33 In-Reply-To: <057.5c0bb468d0e6002a930b5efaed93f3f3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130522023546.E1A5821F920E@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #33: Rename context information X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:35:47 -0000 #33: Rename context information Changes (by n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: fixed statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue May 21 19:36:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3581C21F9216 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:36:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pINUZKz9BncJ for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD9221F930A for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40606 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ueyuo-0000w0-IH; Wed, 22 May 2013 04:36:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, b.hedstrom@cablelabs.com, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:36:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/34#comment:4 Message-ID: <072.3228932892430167304e105cb3568bc7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.ae094a4745fdf78624bbf6e4564985ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 34 In-Reply-To: <057.ae094a4745fdf78624bbf6e4564985ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement@tools.ietf.org, b.hedstrom@cablelabs.com, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, moulchan@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130522023643.9CD9221F930A@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #34: Indicate how indexing and modeling of battery cells is done X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:36:44 -0000 #34: Indicate how indexing and modeling of battery cells is done Changes (by n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman-applicability- jparello@cisco.com | statement@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: | Version: applicability- | Resolution: fixed statement | Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 23 13:38:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895D821F8DFC for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:38:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2doOkNlJl9iA for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2256A21F91A3 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47626 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UfbgD-0005Px-5a; Thu, 23 May 2013 22:00:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: bnordman@lbl.gov X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:00:05 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/36 Message-ID: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 36 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: bnordman@lbl.gov, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:38:57 -0000 #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed EMAN requirements seem to be met by PoweredBy relationship so unnecessary to add MeteredBy. -- ------------------------------+------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------+------------------- Ticket URL: eman From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 23 14:34:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9785621F9846 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zRiO92hnCw0t for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9467621F9858 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50838 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UfcRp-0006ni-C9; Thu, 23 May 2013 22:49:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: brads@coraid.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:49:17 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/36#comment:1 Message-ID: <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 36 In-Reply-To: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: brads@coraid.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:34:06 -0000 #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Comment (by brads@coraid.com): Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to support submeters. Q.E.D. -- ------------------------------+-------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------+-------------------- Ticket URL: eman From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri May 24 13:10:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E0721F8F1E; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:10:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1QsQsZLV7unX; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C936211E80FC; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5DBCE6210B; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:09:48 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20130524200948.5DBCE6210B@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Cc: eman@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [eman] RFC 6933 on Entity MIB (Version 4) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:10:30 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6933 Title: Entity MIB (Version 4) Author: A. Bierman, D. Romascanu, J. Quittek, M. Chandramouli Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2013 Mailbox: andy@yumaworks.com, dromasca@avaya.com, quittek@neclab.eu, moulchan@cisco.com Pages: 76 Characters: 165278 Obsoletes: RFC 4133 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6933.txt This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing multiple logical and physical entities managed by a single Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent. This document specifies version 4 of the Entity MIB. This memo obsoletes version 3 of the Entity MIB module published as RFC 4133. This document is a product of the Energy Management Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From bnordman@lbl.gov Fri May 24 16:08:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B617121F871D for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8XUFjAUIXLMm for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe1.lbl.gov (fe1.lbl.gov [128.3.41.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EC821F8AEA for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Ironport-SBRS: 4.8 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtgCAJXxn1HRVdwqlGdsb2JhbABXA4JEdLl7iDx/CBYOAQEBAQcLCwkSKoIkAQEEAQEBawQHEAsEBzsiBQ0BBQEcBhOIDQycDp1SjWwJgRgMBAcRg0MDiR+OHIEpineDOxYphFUc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,738,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="18555473" Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]) by fe1.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id bj3so4840796pad.15 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=enH5ei6BQ772qcI+evGIS/ieJ6F8L+/J8Au5KttS3IE=; b=V7ihscIXLeEMSuiypfG5SLdZHJs78YqdnWwbvfZKpVkMv49odZv60/mynD9MG+BDZo B7+xoZmdAIUFVwzL/ClFTyvKcz70eyeefg/WX7YbjTUlHXooaWvWbjimsDx1GPdX4DSD uWOyXsaTsljNHOMQmNo4AMhuPKnWVxuUGj/yq7XyeD/4iTU8tl8wxW0dndVnrg45QFyn g+uRm0OPwQXq3x3ce3zQnviqGi2Lqa5kK1eBwKnchoweznTsAKP7QjrZq2UZd/ScsK8L LBiGpWLjPFlrH31bU8RZxCvbG7jDvAc6IFy9NSSvANV8aEuiUXtZtkzJczpEcaiZSGca vM+g== X-Received: by 10.69.0.132 with SMTP id ay4mr19764527pbd.62.1369436899222; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.69.0.132 with SMTP id ay4mr19764525pbd.62.1369436899083; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.182.194 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: eman issue tracker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e14f7e990a904dd7edf74 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkThbKkUI9QUy9Giivn6xfB2OftV/HWDxgoEgYIYq15/ZfeCzEr8+19q8FUc5W9XmKkzpcKfwYukNpgY3/FpttWJvweQso4TUq3HxpGB6/P+tDcktpQNjkX0ksy6ooVUW49LTIg Cc: eman mailing list Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:08:30 -0000 --047d7b2e14f7e990a904dd7edf74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any device can perform metering." There is no separate type of entity that is a meter. Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or indirect (multi-hop) powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is an elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning. The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only metering is duplicative. --Bruce On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker < trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote: > #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed > > > Comment (by brads@coraid.com): > > Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to > support submeters. Q.E.D. > > -- > ------------------------------+-------------------- > Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: framework | Version: > Severity: - | Resolution: > Keywords: | > ------------------------------+-------------------- > > Ticket URL: > eman > > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman > -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *nordman.lbl.gov* BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --047d7b2e14f7e990a904dd7edf74 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a typ= e of device and any device can perform metering."
There is no= separate type of entity that is a meter.
Thus, metered-by is= indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or indirect (multi-hop)
powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is= an
elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning.
<= /div>
The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only
metering is duplicative.
--Bruce



On Thu, May 23, 2013 a= t 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker <trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether Mete= redBy relationship is needed


Comment (by brads@coraid.com)= :

=A0Sub-meters almost never provide power. =A0So, MeteredBy is required to =A0support submeters. =A0Q.E.D.

--
------------------------------+--------------------
=A0Reporter: =A0bnord= man@lbl.gov =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 Owner: =A0Bruce
=A0 =A0 =A0Type: =A0defect =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0Status: =A0n= ew
=A0Priority: =A0major =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 Milestone:
Component: =A0framework =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0 Version:
=A0Severity: =A0- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0Resolution: =A0Keywords: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:1>
eman <http://t= ools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bru= ce Nordman
Lawrence Berkel= ey National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov=
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
--047d7b2e14f7e990a904dd7edf74-- From jparello@cisco.com Sun May 26 14:10:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8883521F946C for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:10:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RD-2fLhq+Tl2 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6C921F9509 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:10:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8772; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369602655; x=1370812255; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=sPaFpC6UpAvUCCvx4krvZFN2ylrf7/4JYGti82tIr9M=; b=kxgZyJ1nMt2yh4muqhbHH8lBpHR48DTHy6e2JPI4mAupkmYw7X1pY+qY zkgO8+/P0wrN9vMqEb7NKdSza5Qu2QRHidvjPFu4pPxd7gCMVTWLspHhK jHxhkIewHEMSzZsEFt/2NvumFgEHWKGAdKQ6g1p8DAu1jOq1jVh9l1Dqy A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkFAIx5olGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABXA4JERDC5RYg8gQUWdIIkAQEEAQEBawQHEAIBCA4xBycLFBECBA4FiA0MvE6NbAmBGAwEBgEJCIJiYQOXO4EpineFIIMP X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,746,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="215141601" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2013 21:10:54 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4QLAshn023841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:54 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.232]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 26 May 2013 16:10:53 -0500 From: "John Parello (jparello)" To: Bruce Nordman Thread-Topic: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Thread-Index: AQHOV/1Go4eDin23pk2N6n0d9eN7+pkVSv+AgAKwCVY= Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:53 +0000 Message-ID: <7A49C115-B104-46E9-850B-03854847F061@cisco.com> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7A49C115B10446E9850B03854847F061ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: eman mailing list , eman issue tracker Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:59 -0000 --_000_7A49C115B10446E9850B03854847F061ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and laye= r 2 topologies respectively. whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform meteri= ng has nothing to do with the topologies between devices. So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in pref= erence to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to do w= ith it 4.1 Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any device can p= erform metering." There is no separate type of entity that is a meter. Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or indirect= (multi-hop) powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning. The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only metering is duplicative. --Bruce On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker > wrote: #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Comment (by brads@coraid.com): Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to support submeters. Q.E.D. -- ------------------------------+-------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruc= e Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------+-------------------- Ticket URL: eman _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman --_000_7A49C115B10446E9850B03854847F061ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and= layer 2 topologies respectively.

whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform metering has nothing to do with the topol= ogies between devices.

So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in prefer= ence to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to do wit= h it 4.1
Jp


Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any de= vice can perform metering."
There is no separate type of entity that is a meter.
Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or ind= irect (multi-hop)
powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is=  
elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning.
The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only
metering is duplicative.
--Bruce



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue trac= ker <= trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed

Comment (by brads@coraid.com):

 Sub-meters almost never provide power.  So, MeteredBy is require= d to
 support submeters.  Q.E.D.

--
------------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  bnordman@lbl.gov  |       Owner:  Bruce
     Type:  defect           &= nbsp;|      Status:  new
 Priority:  major             | &nb= sp; Milestone:
Component:  framework         |     Vers= ion:
 Severity:  -               &n= bsp; |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                 &nb= sp;  |
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:1>
eman <http://t= ools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
--_000_7A49C115B10446E9850B03854847F061ciscocom_-- From bnordman@lbl.gov Mon May 27 21:22:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655C321F9420 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJHQ4sTnryhC for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe2.lbl.gov (fe2.lbl.gov [128.3.41.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B59921F941D for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Ironport-SBRS: 4.8 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvECALwvpFHRVdwylGdsb2JhbABXA4JEdLlRiDuBAQgWDgEBAQEHCwsJEiqCIwEBAQMBAQEBawQHBQsLCw0uIgUNAQUBHAYTiAcGDJ83nFeNbAmBGAwEBxGDQwOJH44cgSmKd4M7FimEVRw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,755,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="20322646" Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]) by fe2.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 27 May 2013 21:22:14 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id fb11so6081929pad.9 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=d3bzRuOVmOnReCJ93ayI2od/sEUnDSyuOjqd72SwOxc=; b=jtu+75UmqBIaYZLEaGfTprwPDP5kTMX6ExIQbLF86fTt2Z81k+TfhQ0DIpYQgnTo45 dYfoGsRSxgBXHFiqjn/KZEOoY/h1kbwblZ9JTjap09LT5XQACvTLmTJ7xaE3i7rTRpKQ 6NCHX0X30tuKTYW+kw6Ux2DLWAkjH24ZtFDgBLwsLKifq3doWpxbvKpbTlEUy5TFbwjq 3bRprMUe88f8CL41M1rdsjgA5Deu1OeYaSOneMsYQ3vkwVYoZ7MiWPPzMwhk1rfGtBz4 h01JJ68zJfmaRRr9MP22nBYTO1actTajOIo24Plr19COTgV8Vj2gukvUQfCxU7jtlLTn 0UVQ== X-Received: by 10.66.246.131 with SMTP id xw3mr32052484pac.114.1369714934023; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.246.131 with SMTP id xw3mr32052476pac.114.1369714933911; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.182.194 with HTTP; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7A49C115-B104-46E9-850B-03854847F061@cisco.com> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> <7A49C115-B104-46E9-850B-03854847F061@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: "John Parello (jparello)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15a0db146c3004ddbf9cb3 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuCE2dCN4+pAs/RND157UFZGDYKR4mY7IC81flmE1id7yDa+WCBa585bet96yRhAzceF1FXfYQbrWP6nWOgt4mVhAaddlVRlViimvzw6mgxtrNavh1vLCS2xzWUjp8T7GooN3R Cc: eman mailing list , eman issue tracker Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 04:22:19 -0000 --047d7b15a0db146c3004ddbf9cb3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex. This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN protocol itself. In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would suggest that any special EMAN content is needed. I do think it would be helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they use EMAN and what else they do. That seems like the right place for this dedicated meter proposal. It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces - are sufficient to fully implement it. Thanks, --Bruce On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (jparello) wrote: > Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and > layer 2 topologies respectively. > > whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform > metering has nothing to do with the topologies between devices. > > So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in > preference to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to > do with it 4.1 > > Jp > > > Sent from my iPad > (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) > > On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" wrote: > > Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any device > can perform metering." > There is no separate type of entity that is a meter. > Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or > indirect (multi-hop) > powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it > is > elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning. > The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only > metering is duplicative. > --Bruce > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker < > trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote: > >> #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed >> >> >> Comment (by brads@coraid.com): >> >> Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to >> support submeters. Q.E.D. >> >> -- >> ------------------------------+-------------------- >> Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce >> Type: defect | Status: new >> Priority: major | Milestone: >> Component: framework | Version: >> Severity: - | Resolution: >> Keywords: | >> ------------------------------+-------------------- >> >> Ticket URL: >> eman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eman mailing list >> eman@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman >> > > > > -- > *Bruce Nordman* > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > *nordman.lbl.gov* > BNordman@LBL.gov > 510-486-7089 > m: 510-501-7943 > > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman > > -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *nordman.lbl.gov* BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --047d7b15a0db146c3004ddbf9cb3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Specifying that the the dedicated= meter functionality you describe
is at a layer above the basic EMAN one= of devices reporting about
themselves or devices they are connected to = is intriguing, and one
I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days
l= ack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex.=A0

This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy
Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN
protocol itse= lf.

In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't fin= d reference to
dedicated meters as are being described here in a way th= at would
suggest that any special EMAN content is needed.=A0 I do think it would be<= br>helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they
use = EMAN and what else they do.=A0 That seems like the right place
for this = dedicated meter proposal.

It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy<= br>objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces -
ar= e sufficient to fully implement it.=A0

Thanks,

--Bruce



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (jparello) <jparel= lo@cisco.com> wrote:
Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3= and layer 2 topologies respectively.

whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform metering has nothing to do with the topol= ogies between devices.

So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in prefer= ence to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to do wit= h it 4.1
Jp


Sent from my iPad=A0
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes)=A0

On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any de= vice can perform metering."
There is no separate type of entity that is a meter.
Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a= direct (one-hop) or indirect (multi-hop)
powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is= =A0
elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning.
The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only
metering is duplicative.
--Bruce



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue trac= ker <trac= +eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed


Comment (by brads@cor= aid.com):

=A0Sub-meters almost never provide power. =A0So, MeteredBy is required to =A0support submeters. =A0Q.E.D.

--
------------------------------+--------------------
=A0Reporter: =A0= bnordman@lbl.gov =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 Owner: =A0Bruce
=A0 =A0 =A0Type: =A0defect =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0Status: =A0n= ew
=A0Priority: =A0major =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 Milestone:
Component: =A0framework =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0 Version:
=A0Severity: =A0- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0Resolution:
=A0Keywords: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:1>
eman <http://t= ools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov<= br> 510-4= 86-7089
m: 51= 0-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org<= /span>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bru= ce Nordman
Lawrence Berkel= ey National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov=
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
--047d7b15a0db146c3004ddbf9cb3-- From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue May 28 11:37:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F5821F9497 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:37:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFjho7dWim+y for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC77021F9487 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59427 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UhOlO-0003Sj-Ti; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:36:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:36:50 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/29#comment:3 Message-ID: <079.3d0046ffd0f157aa0133260058fb92ba@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <064.716466cc60ff414a38d13249506e9ab3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 29 In-Reply-To: <064.716466cc60ff414a38d13249506e9ab3@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eman-framework@tools.ietf.org, jparello@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: bclaise@cisco.com, bnordman@lbl.gov, brad.schoening@verizon.net, jparello@cisco.com, quittek@netlab.nec.de Resent-Message-Id: <20130528183703.AC77021F9487@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #29: IANA Considerations section needs more detail X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:37:04 -0000 #29: IANA Considerations section needs more detail Changes (by n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-eman- n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz | framework@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: blocker | Milestone: milestone1 Component: framework | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: eman From blueroofmusic@gmail.com Tue May 28 15:32:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE0321F8A0B for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LOW=2.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nh1hqzNPZjLw for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDCE21F89FF for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k13so3353402iea.4 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:31:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=73KxC2rxGRtJ+lJPDF1JMm0GhHPVXPrjSWdM62i53nE=; b=kuLSrHrch0bH7ZiYKE/Opdn599hSW2dPO2X4ws2IUT4WF7gFaPhfnm9ldP6Zlt5vJb cTvGyZtUsOi7NKqnwxUZWlURUWDBZLo6urY950r8DdyVPfMRQ23/P0rOHUtvaKNNQdJe 7sjXTxeViWSXDe1KBu/oFhFCI59ki231PZ82aPmLA7CfJsIye/HrblNjYPb/dy0YPnNU HLJIj84uAlTHfDfkoJSjK/eGDU+GBg9TgCf1y5PNoUNpsPozaH0qpNJegLNrRj8ac2tc 3WhmbLJ1ZE+TGs/04BxhZNZwbXBGQHOxmu1LkInHNvhAITR59LTTrCcmFQuZRTrHoUtt 7N9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.115.42 with SMTP id jl10mr7983345igb.71.1369780315761; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.207.103 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:31:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: eman mailing list , Bruce Nordman , Ira McDonald , William Wagner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0116058224340104ddced58e Subject: [eman] Please add PWG power states to EMAN Framework X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:32:10 -0000 --089e0116058224340104ddced58e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I understand that the EMAN Framework document will request IANA to create some initial sets of power states. We would like this to include the PWG's power state set for imaging devices. That can be found at the following link and the states (and numeric codes) from that are listed below. The stable reference for IEEE-ISTO PWG power state names and numeric values is the PWG Imaging System Power MIB (PWG 5106.5-2011) archived at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/candidates/cs-wimspowermib10-20110214-5106.5.mib On line 50 is the PowPowerStateTC definition, which uses the DMTF CIM power states multiplied by 10 w/ inserted vendor sub-states for a few stable (non-transient) states, as follows: PowPowerStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The power state of this component (System or Subunit). Usage: Vendor extensions allowed ONLY for primary power states (on, standby, suspend, hibernate, and offSoft). Vendor extensions are intentionally not defined for reset or interrupts." REFERENCE "Table 3 in section 7.3 in DMTF CIM Power Profile (DSP 1027)." SYNTAX INTEGER { other(1), -- DO NOT USE unknown(2), -- initial default ONLY on(20), -- On - fully operational onVendor1(21), onVendor2(22), onVendor3(23), onVendor4(24), onVendor5(25), standby(30), -- Standby - light sleep standbyVendor1(31), standbyVendor2(32), standbyVendor3(33), standbyVendor4(34), standbyVendor5(35), suspend(40), -- Suspend - deep sleep suspendVendor1(41), suspendVendor2(42), suspendVendor3(43), suspendVendor4(44), suspendVendor5(45), resetSoft(50), -- Reset - soft reset offHard(60), -- Off Hard - no power consumed hibernate(70), -- Hibernate - context save, off hibernateVendor1(71), hibernateVendor2(72), hibernateVendor3(73), hibernateVendor4(74), hibernateVendor5(75), offSoft(80), -- Off Soft - w/ auxiliary power offSoftVendor1(81), offSoftVendor2(82), offSoftVendor3(83), offSoftVendor4(84), offSoftVendor5(85), resetHard(90), -- hard off, power on resetMBR(100), -- Master Bus Reset resetNMI(110), -- Non-Maskable Interrupt offSoftGraceful(120), -- orderley shutdown, soft off offHardGraceful(130), -- orderly shutdown, hard off resetMBRGraceful(140), -- orderly shutdown, MBR reset resetSoftGraceful(150), -- orderly shutdown, soft reset resetHardGraceful(160), -- orderly shutdown, hard reset resetINIT(170), -- Diagnostic Interrupt (INIT) notApplicable(180), noChange(190) } Thanks, - Ira (editor of PWG Power MIB and PWG Secretary). Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG 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 --089e0116058224340104ddced58e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I understand that the EMAN Framework document will request IANA to create some initial sets of power
states.=A0 We wou= ld like this to include the PWG's power
state set for imaging device= s.=A0 That can be found at
the following link and the states (and numeri= c codes)
from that are listed below.

The stable reference for IEEE-ISTO PWG p= ower state
names and numeric values is the PWG Imaging System
Power= MIB (PWG 5106.5-2011) archived at:

ft= p://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/candidates/cs-wimspowermib10-20110214-5106.5.mib

On line 50 is the PowPowerStateTC definition, which uses
the DMTF C= IM power states multiplied by 10 w/ inserted
vendor sub-states for a fe= w stable (non-transient) states,
as follows:

PowPowerStateTC ::= =3D TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
=A0=A0=A0 STATUS=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 current
=A0=A0=A0 DESCRIPTION
=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 "The power state of this component (System or Subunit)= .

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Usage:=A0 Vendor extensions allowed ONLY for= primary power states
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (on, standby, suspend, hiber= nate, and offSoft).=A0 Vendor
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 extensions are intentionally not defined for reset or=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 interrupts."
=A0=A0=A0 REFERENCE
=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 "Table 3 in section 7.3 in DMTF CIM Power Profile (= DSP 1027)."
=A0=A0=A0 SYNTAX=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 INTEGER {
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 other(1),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0 -- DO NOT USE
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 unknow= n(2),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- initia= l default ONLY
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 on(20),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- On - fully operational
= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 onVendor1(21),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 onVendor2(22),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 onVendor3(23),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 onVendor4(24)= ,
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 onVendor5(25),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standby(= 30),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Standby - = light sleep
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standbyVendor1(31),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 standbyVendor2(32),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standbyVendor3(33),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standbyVendor4(34),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standbyV= endor5(35),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 suspend(40),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Suspend - deep sleep
=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 suspendVendor1(41),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 suspendVendor2(42),<= br>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 suspendVendor3(43),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 suspendVendor4(44),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 suspendV= endor5(45),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetSoft(50),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Reset - soft reset
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = offHard(60),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Of= f Hard - no power consumed
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 hibernate(70),=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Hibernate - context save, off=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 hibernateVendor1(71),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 hibern= ateVendor2(72),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 hibernateVendor3(73),
=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 hibernateVendor4(74),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 hibernateVendor= 5(75),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offSoft(80),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Off Soft - w/ auxiliary power
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offSoftVendor1(81),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offSoftV= endor2(82),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offSoftVendor3(83),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 offSoftVendor4(84),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offSoftVendor5(85),
= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetHard(90),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 -- hard off, power on
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetMBR(100),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Master Bus Reset
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetNMI(110),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Non-Maskable Interrupt
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offSoftGrac= eful(120),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- orderley shutdown, soft off
= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 offHardGraceful(130),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -= - orderly shutdown, hard off
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetMBRGraceful(140)= ,=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- orderly shutdown, MBR reset
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetSoftGraceful(150),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- or= derly shutdown, soft reset
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 resetHardGraceful(160),= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- orderly shutdown, hard reset
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 resetINIT(170),=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- D= iagnostic Interrupt (INIT)
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 notApplicable(180),
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 noChange= (190)
=A0=A0=A0 }

Thanks,
- Ira (editor = of PWG Power MIB and PWG Secretary).


--089e0116058224340104ddced58e-- From bclaise@cisco.com Wed May 29 06:35:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1034421F9298 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:35:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.846, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8xbmXEHYesv for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FAF21F91B2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:35:41 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4TDZeev007169 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:35:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.61.170.81] ([10.61.170.81]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4TDZOwT018981 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:35:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51A6041C.2070102@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:35:24 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: eman@ietf.org References: <20130524200948.5DBCE6210B@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20130524200948.5DBCE6210B@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [eman] RFC 6933 on Entity MIB (Version 4) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:35:49 -0000 Congratulations to the authors, and the EMAN chairs. Regards, Benoit > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 6933 > > Title: Entity MIB (Version 4) > Author: A. Bierman, D. Romascanu, > J. Quittek, M. Chandramouli > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: May 2013 > Mailbox: andy@yumaworks.com, > dromasca@avaya.com, > quittek@neclab.eu, > moulchan@cisco.com > Pages: 76 > Characters: 165278 > Obsoletes: RFC 4133 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06.txt > > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6933.txt > > This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) > for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. > In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing > multiple logical and physical entities managed by a single Simple > Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent. This document specifies > version 4 of the Entity MIB. This memo obsoletes version 3 of the > Entity MIB module published as RFC 4133. > > This document is a product of the Energy Management Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track > protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet > Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and > status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. > For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman > > From trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 29 06:39:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C74E21F8FB6 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:39:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5K-bLknF8vNI for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A42F21F8F1E for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54001 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Uhgae-0002iO-PY; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:38:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "eman issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: brads@coraid.com X-Trac-Project: eman Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:38:56 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/eman/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/ticket/36#comment:2 Message-ID: <070.6088bf1f90de3048ca60ae728c334000@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 36 In-Reply-To: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: brads@coraid.com, eman@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:39:00 -0000 #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Comment (by brads@coraid.com): Other standards groups view !MeterBy and !PoweredBy as distinct logical functions. For example, NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 states: 3.5.1 Distinction between the Meter and the Energy Services Interface The meter and the ESI (Energy Services Interface) have very different characteristics and functions. The logical separation of the meter and the ESI is a very important forward-looking aspect of the reference model. .. While the ESI and meter are logically viewed as separate devices, this does not preclude the possibility for manufacturers to implement the meter and ESI in one physical device, provided that the flexibility and extensibility to support the Smart Grid vision can be achieved. Most smart meters currently integrate the ESI and meter functionality in one device due to cost considerations. Looking forward, logical separation of the two functions, even if physically integrated, is essential to avoid having the meter become an impediment to innovation in energy services enabled by the Smart Grid." Full Text here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf -- ------------------------------+-------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------+-------------------- Ticket URL: eman From bnordman@lbl.gov Wed May 29 21:12:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E403621F930C for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.843 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AL-D4Sae9mdD for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe1.lbl.gov (fe1.lbl.gov [128.3.41.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCA121F8FB3 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Ironport-SBRS: 4.7 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArsCAPLQplHRVaAyk2dsb2JhbABWA4JFdLlPiDh7CBYOAQEBAQcLCwkUBCSCGwkBAQICAQEBawQHEAsLOyIFDQEFARwGEwiFboIXDJwSngSNa4EYDAQHEYJAgQYDiR+OHIEpineDOxYphFUc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,768,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="18879226" Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50]) by fe1.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id wy17so10179727pbc.23 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Mx6hQUAvM0awrBpCCOBCkUlLJv82RlIRnEaJ4QaWOHc=; b=c3oxP86fPlo7E0q82iWj+LixYzjGC6GjpuOAw6m9k6zm7Xi+F/Flm6t+xMMnrwQVd8 a5wxs3JUfvEi4O2UZ9sb4cZA/jEcMrTCrZa0DMzEAHSb4hNimh+pTVClLA5EwSc2PeuM HkHObS7UQdaujrtCAPHcKkP0GpN9yTGKJFxfGgwxXvT2+mLFALHzXftS2HhRe8qnRsYt yFk33H9Cae2S0elqHITjOunzIFnB4mKVgThW5TxomXwuNHTSl03l58wpcJBDRjZbBPEz 15/p7nsJF+yKU1IORIXudnpPuqY531+dMjGiIOmOml7HV76jQNl9Z2m9jXXUMLGCvSC6 mruw== X-Received: by 10.66.226.233 with SMTP id rv9mr6485592pac.155.1369887123234; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.226.233 with SMTP id rv9mr6485584pac.155.1369887123128; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.182.194 with HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <070.6088bf1f90de3048ca60ae728c334000@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6088bf1f90de3048ca60ae728c334000@trac.tools.ietf.org> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: eman issue tracker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b07245a5b592104dde7b3b0 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkmqtvTeqZQkAmxAYUwjPe3lhR/reZnqmyP5RAP+x9oL05X7lUsn1nCID5xR7N6gSP/LvBYfq65OZRoDQIw6WAa9miT5poe08K3oa4c2QUXND35gQ8Fy6qBKdVbMsi22GT/IUN Cc: eman mailing list Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 04:12:08 -0000 --047d7b07245a5b592104dde7b3b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I don't follow why the ESI would be relevant to EMAN. EMAN does not address coordination with the grid as many standards do. Standards designed for grid coordination (e.g. the FSGIM) have different purposes than EMAN and different fundamental models. The question at hand is what EMAN needs. --Bruce On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, eman issue tracker < trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote: > #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed > > > Comment (by brads@coraid.com): > > Other standards groups view !MeterBy and !PoweredBy as distinct logical > functions. For example, NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid > Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 states: > > 3.5.1 Distinction between the Meter and the Energy Services Interface > > The meter and the ESI (Energy Services Interface) have very different > characteristics and functions. The logical separation of the meter and the > ESI is a very important forward-looking aspect of the reference model. > .. > While the ESI and meter are logically viewed as separate devices, this > does not preclude the > possibility for manufacturers to implement the meter and ESI in one > physical device, provided > that the flexibility and extensibility to support the Smart Grid > vision can be achieved. Most smart > meters currently integrate the ESI and meter functionality in one > device due to cost > considerations. Looking forward, logical separation of the two > functions, even if physically > integrated, is essential to avoid having the meter become an > impediment to innovation in energy > services enabled by the Smart Grid." > > > Full Text here: > > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf > > -- > ------------------------------+-------------------- > Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: framework | Version: > Severity: - | Resolution: > Keywords: | > ------------------------------+-------------------- > > Ticket URL: > eman > > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman > -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *nordman.lbl.gov* BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --047d7b07245a5b592104dde7b3b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't follow why the ESI would be relevant to E= MAN.
EMAN does not address coordination with the grid as
many standar= ds do.=A0 Standards designed for grid
coordination (e.g. the FSGIM) have= different purposes
than EMAN and different fundamental models.=A0 The
question at hand is w= hat EMAN needs.
--Bruce

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, eman issu= e tracker <trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:=
#36: Consider whether Mete= redBy relationship is needed


Comment (by brads@coraid.com)= :

=A0Other standards groups view !MeterBy and !PoweredBy as distinct logical<= br> =A0functions. =A0For example, NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid
=A0Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 states:

=A03.5.1 Distinction between the Meter and the Energy Services Interface
=A0 =A0 =A0The meter and the ESI (Energy Services Interface) have very diff= erent
=A0characteristics and functions. The logical separation of the meter and t= he
=A0ESI is a very important forward-looking aspect of the reference model. =A0 =A0 =A0..
=A0 =A0 =A0While the ESI and meter are logically viewed as separate devices= , this
=A0does not preclude the
=A0 =A0 =A0possibility for manufacturers to implement the meter and ESI in = one
=A0physical device, provided
=A0 =A0 =A0that the flexibility and extensibility to support the Smart Grid=
=A0vision can be achieved. Most smart
=A0 =A0 =A0meters currently integrate the ESI and meter functionality in on= e
=A0device due to cost
=A0 =A0 =A0considerations. Looking forward, logical separation of the two =A0functions, even if physically
=A0 =A0 =A0integrated, is essential to avoid having the meter become an
=A0impediment to innovation in energy
=A0 =A0 =A0services enabled by the Smart Grid."


=A0Full Text here:
=A0http://www.nist.gov/public_af= fairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf

--
------------------------------+--------------------
=A0Reporter: =A0bnord= man@lbl.gov =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 Owner: =A0Bruce
=A0 =A0 =A0Type: =A0defect =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0Status: =A0n= ew
=A0Priority: =A0major =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 Milestone:
Component: =A0framework =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0 Version:
=A0Severity: =A0- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 |= =A0Resolution:
=A0Keywords: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/tra= c/ticket/36#comment:2>
eman <http://tools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
La= wrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.g= ov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
--047d7b07245a5b592104dde7b3b0-- From jparello@cisco.com Thu May 30 08:50:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB4E21F967F for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VN1aF3DYkmYQ for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA9C21F91B7 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:50:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12682; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369929017; x=1371138617; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=pyZHqFxZWP7BFaCCy/rc6qgVBSfRmW/uJhEQDkijDG0=; b=JS8AF2m0utSfQ32S3RnzhNSx/3skCvzjhIkQPnwrKhaYapZKuwLrk9FF eBZlzL6NN6K5PY1BnLRSxKhJYi4KIbC3oU46fdAJO/vNKwlR8Qy3VdDEy how+PsJ+y3u3JY9aPjTBS0pWiRe2CmRn3VAEdOP5ICX+YVuuxSz5fleKd w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FANlyp1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABWA4JFRDC5VIg7fhZ0giQBAQQBAQFrBAcQAgEIDjEHJwsUEQIEDgWIDQy7To1rCYEYDAQGAQkIgmVhA5c+gSmKd4Uggw8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,770,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="216791171" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2013 15:50:17 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4UFoGM0030230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2013 15:50:16 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.232]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:50:16 -0500 From: "John Parello (jparello)" To: Bruce Nordman Thread-Topic: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Thread-Index: AQHOV/1Go4eDin23pk2N6n0d9eN7+pkVSv+AgAKwCVaAAl6qgIADkRW6 Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:50:16 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE55DAC-DFF7-41E8-BD7C-15134BF2F32D@cisco.com> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> <7A49C115-B104-46E9-850B-03854847F061@cisco.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8AE55DACDFF741E8BD7C15134BF2F32Dciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: eman mailing list , eman issue tracker Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:50:27 -0000 --_000_8AE55DACDFF741E8BD7C15134BF2F32Dciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bruce, I'm not sure what you mean by EMAN protocol? What protocol are you referring to? We mention snmp then building protocols in the framework draft but we state= d we are protocol agnostic. Is there some other draft we should be looking = at? Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 27, 2013, at 9:22 PM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex. This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN protocol itself. In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would suggest that any special EMAN content is needed. I do think it would be helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they use EMAN and what else they do. That seems like the right place for this dedicated meter proposal. It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces - are sufficient to fully implement it. Thanks, --Bruce On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (jparello) > wrote: Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and laye= r 2 topologies respectively. whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform meteri= ng has nothing to do with the topologies between devices. So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in pref= erence to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to do w= ith it 4.1 Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any device can p= erform metering." There is no separate type of entity that is a meter. Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or indirect= (multi-hop) powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning. The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only metering is duplicative. --Bruce On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker > wrote: #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Comment (by brads@coraid.com): Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to support submeters. Q.E.D. -- ------------------------------+-------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruc= e Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------+-------------------- Ticket URL: eman _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --_000_8AE55DACDFF741E8BD7C15134BF2F32Dciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure what you mean by EMAN protocol?
What protocol are you referring to? 

We mention snmp then building protocols in the framework draft but we = stated we are protocol agnostic. Is there some other draft we should be loo= king at?

Jp

Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 27, 2013, at 9:22 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe
is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about
themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one
I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days
lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex. 

This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy
Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN
protocol itself.

In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to
dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would
suggest that any special EMAN content is needed.  I do think it would = be
helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they
use EMAN and what else they do.  That seems like the right place
for this dedicated meter proposal.

It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy
objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces -
are sufficient to fully implement it. 

Thanks,

--Bruce



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (j= parello) <jparello@cisco.com> wrote:
Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and= layer 2 topologies respectively.

whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can per= form metering has nothing to do with the topologies between devices.

So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology fea= ture in preference to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has not= hing to do with it 4.1
Jp


Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any de= vice can perform metering."
There is no separate type of entity that is a meter.
Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (on= e-hop) or indirect (multi-hop)
powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is=  
elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct me= aning.
The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only
metering is duplicative.
--Bruce



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue trac= ker <= trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed


Comment (by brads@cor= aid.com):

 Sub-meters almost never provide power.  So, MeteredBy is require= d to
 support submeters.  Q.E.D.

--
------------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  bnordman@lbl.gov  |       Owner:  Bruce<= br>      Type:  defect           &= nbsp;|      Status:  new
 Priority:  major             | &nb= sp; Milestone:
Component:  framework         |     Vers= ion:
 Severity:  -               &n= bsp; |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                 &nb= sp;  |
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:1>
eman <http://t= ools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov<= br> 5= 10-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org<= /span>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
--_000_8AE55DACDFF741E8BD7C15134BF2F32Dciscocom_-- From bnordman@lbl.gov Thu May 30 08:58:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCB521F946F for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lvdHOde8RK0 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe2.lbl.gov (fe2.lbl.gov [128.3.41.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A96221F9401 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Ironport-SBRS: 4.1 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQBAMd1p1HRVaA0jWdsb2JhbABWA4JFdLlWiDt2CBYOAQEBAQcLCwkSBiSCIwEBAQMBAQEBawQHBQsLCw0uIgUNAQUBHAYTiAcGDJ0+nhmNawmBGAwEBxGDRgOJII4egSmKd4M7FimEVRw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,770,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="20584339" Received: from mail-pb0-f52.google.com ([209.85.160.52]) by fe2.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 30 May 2013 08:58:26 -0700 Received: by mail-pb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id xa12so598173pbc.39 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ghLtSESvskwR2Nu1vaH6BwnF7ACp1VOripZ0o7n9m14=; b=EXkTIVTVmcSetFza7HjguXFQNqw5aFtS3rH8B59QVZ5wda0zTA451V6nsSADAgSlWI vU510IllkGq+YcIz5/JNroaE3UlX1qKUh1T9tBmPXv82ZmDFZ9Ll/VsphQsGTSoWujU2 +qDzT2XgdHTClY2X0ZZCzDfYXEMPc9pzq7yjXFr/QdVb/igbp60EIDXijSOoXSx4yRRQ XmYU14vdUhlj9jDGvb/wqxuFBDRrENMKKbR6z4TGSZlfDUiuQ6QcYFGMAJyQXDKkMbia mqfSP/TnVymL+b42vIDK710I2+7Haa3uhVGxmEkWfiLGNoKPm0uh42MdYCTH6QTkW5Cb v2Bw== X-Received: by 10.66.145.229 with SMTP id sx5mr9224589pab.11.1369929506972; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.145.229 with SMTP id sx5mr9224581pab.11.1369929506870; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.182.194 with HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8AE55DAC-DFF7-41E8-BD7C-15134BF2F32D@cisco.com> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> <7A49C115-B104-46E9-850B-03854847F061@cisco.com> <8AE55DAC-DFF7-41E8-BD7C-15134BF2F32D@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:58:26 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: "John Parello (jparello)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6781b09fe57c04ddf19167 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYmrnH0CMKuBaLCySpWZSuOzSnCmUgNuIB6UMXTbpf2BPVZuKxTtgorchX5FosSBUTU8U4QPSOsDiDFd6U1xAAhfYSRxfvnbzYxElWJxQCbO/9287koEOoUutYJ0o6C1fDUFjz Cc: eman mailing list , eman issue tracker Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:58:59 -0000 --047d7b6781b09fe57c04ddf19167 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I am referencing the data model that EMAN specifies -- the content in the EMAN documents. I was using protocol in a generic sense but can use a different term if you prefer. --Bruce On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, John Parello (jparello) wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > I'm not sure what you mean by EMAN protocol? > What protocol are you referring to? > > We mention snmp then building protocols in the framework draft but we > stated we are protocol agnostic. Is there some other draft we should be > looking at? > > Jp > > Sent from my iPad > (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) > > On May 27, 2013, at 9:22 PM, "Bruce Nordman" wrote: > > Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe > is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about > themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one > I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days > lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex. > > This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy > Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN > protocol itself. > > In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to > dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would > suggest that any special EMAN content is needed. I do think it would be > helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they > use EMAN and what else they do. That seems like the right place > for this dedicated meter proposal. > > It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy > objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces - > are sufficient to fully implement it. > > Thanks, > > --Bruce > > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (jparello) < > jparello@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and >> layer 2 topologies respectively. >> >> whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform >> metering has nothing to do with the topologies between devices. >> >> So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in >> preference to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to >> do with it 4.1 >> >> Jp >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) >> >> On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" wrote: >> >> Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any >> device can perform metering." >> There is no separate type of entity that is a meter. >> Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or >> indirect (multi-hop) >> powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it >> is >> elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning. >> The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only >> metering is duplicative. >> --Bruce >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker < >> trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed >>> >>> >>> Comment (by brads@coraid.com): >>> >>> Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to >>> support submeters. Q.E.D. >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------+-------------------- >>> Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruce >>> Type: defect | Status: new >>> Priority: major | Milestone: >>> Component: framework | Version: >>> Severity: - | Resolution: >>> Keywords: | >>> ------------------------------+-------------------- >>> >>> Ticket URL: >> > >>> eman >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eman mailing list >>> eman@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Bruce Nordman* >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> *nordman.lbl.gov* >> BNordman@LBL.gov >> 510-486-7089 >> m: 510-501-7943 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eman mailing list >> eman@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman >> >> > > > -- > *Bruce Nordman* > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > *nordman.lbl.gov* > BNordman@LBL.gov > 510-486-7089 > m: 510-501-7943 > > -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *nordman.lbl.gov* BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --047d7b6781b09fe57c04ddf19167 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am referencing the data model that
EMAN spe= cifies -- the content in the EMAN
documents.=A0 I was using protoc= ol in a generic
sense but can use a different term if you prefer.
--Bruce


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, John Parello (jparello) <jparello@ci= sco.com> wrote:
Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure what you mean by EMAN protocol?
What protocol are you referring to?=A0

We mention snmp then building protocols in the framework draft but we = stated we are protocol agnostic. Is there some other draft we should be loo= king at?

Jp

Sent from my iPad=A0
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes)=A0

On May 27, 2013, at 9:22 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe
is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about
themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one
I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days
lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex.=A0

This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy
Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN
protocol itself.

In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would
suggest that any special EMAN content is needed.=A0 I do think it would be<= br> helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they
use EMAN and what else they do.=A0 That seems like the right place
for this dedicated meter proposal.

It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy
objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces -
are sufficient to fully implement it.=A0

Thanks,

--Bruce



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (j= parello) <jparello@cisco.com> wrote:
Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3= and layer 2 topologies respectively.

whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can per= form metering has nothing to do with the topologies between devices.

So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology fea= ture in preference to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has not= hing to do with it 4.1
Jp


Sent from my iPad=A0
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes)=A0

On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any de= vice can perform metering."
There is no separate type of entity that is a meter.
Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or ind= irect (multi-hop)
powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is= =A0
elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning.
The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only
metering is duplicative.
--Bruce



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue trac= ker <trac= +eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed


Comment (by brads@cor= aid.com):

=A0Sub-meters almost never provide power. =A0So, MeteredBy is required to =A0support submeters. =A0Q.E.D.

--
------------------------------+--------------------
=A0Reporter: =A0= bnordman@lbl.gov =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 Owner: =A0Bruce
=A0 =A0 =A0Type: =A0defect =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0Status: =A0n= ew
=A0Priority: =A0major =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 Milestone:
Component: =A0framework =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0 Version:
=A0Severity: =A0- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0Resolution:
=A0Keywords: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:1>
eman <http://t= ools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov<= br> 510-4= 86-7089
m: 51= 0-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org<= /span>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov<= br> 510-4= 86-7089
m: 51= 0-501-7943



--
Bru= ce Nordman
Lawrence Berkel= ey National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov=
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
--047d7b6781b09fe57c04ddf19167-- From jparello@cisco.com Thu May 30 15:18:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2B621F92BB for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PiATZQkSeJNI for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC7F21F929F for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16169; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369952298; x=1371161898; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ktvyHR4qwK+YEG45ijl5NsuKKclW6ybV70MQrIsEW28=; b=ZJ7vJlqi1i03sPIVBSB6RIFxRB15rY86cLf9r3rVy6HlkPrB6tjpyVwY XTCUff2Y85003aBNt/4Hs7Gtv85U8BlwosCWfetpk6BClBXPkAIKGTVos Xo7dPclT3DXbhcZIJIyfbC5wz195lvfkJX5g1fYCSfKjRx/ZJK0FrMQRy E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FACvPp1GtJXG//2dsb2JhbABXA4JFRDC3KIg7fRZ0giQBAQQBAQFrBAcQAgEIDjEHJwsUEQIEDgUJiAQMuyWNawmBGAwEBgEJCIJlYQOXPoEpineFIIMP X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,773,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="217039950" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2013 22:18:17 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4UMIHDY017910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2013 22:18:17 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.232]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 30 May 2013 17:18:17 -0500 From: "John Parello (jparello)" To: Bruce Nordman Thread-Topic: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Thread-Index: AQHOV/1Go4eDin23pk2N6n0d9eN7+pkVSv+AgAKwCVaAAl6qgIADkRW6gABWGgCAABZOzA== Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:18:16 +0000 Message-ID: <38800413-B111-4A79-ABDE-405C6CA1ABAD@cisco.com> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6079885e5662eb45605216b3b73d383c@trac.tools.ietf.org> <7A49C115-B104-46E9-850B-03854847F061@cisco.com> <8AE55DAC-DFF7-41E8-BD7C-15134BF2F32D@cisco.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38800413B1114A79ABDE405C6CA1ABADciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: eman mailing list , eman issue tracker Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:18:23 -0000 --_000_38800413B1114A79ABDE405C6CA1ABADciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bruce, Ok thanks. Well "protocol" even in a general sense doesn't mean" informatio= n model" or "data model." For the framework we are not specifying a data model either, we are specify= ing an information model. So when you said protocol and meant data model I = hope you meant information model. I'll re-read assuming you meant information model for but reference please = see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3444.txt which summarizes nicely. Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 30, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: I am referencing the data model that EMAN specifies -- the content in the EMAN documents. I was using protocol in a generic sense but can use a different term if you prefer. --Bruce On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, John Parello (jparello) > wrote: Hi Bruce, I'm not sure what you mean by EMAN protocol? What protocol are you referring to? We mention snmp then building protocols in the framework draft but we state= d we are protocol agnostic. Is there some other draft we should be looking = at? Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 27, 2013, at 9:22 PM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex. This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN protocol itself. In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would suggest that any special EMAN content is needed. I do think it would be helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they use EMAN and what else they do. That seems like the right place for this dedicated meter proposal. It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces - are sufficient to fully implement it. Thanks, --Bruce On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (jparello) > wrote: Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and laye= r 2 topologies respectively. whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can perform meteri= ng has nothing to do with the topologies between devices. So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology feature in pref= erence to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has nothing to do w= ith it 4.1 Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any device can p= erform metering." There is no separate type of entity that is a meter. Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or indirect= (multi-hop) powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning. The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only metering is duplicative. --Bruce On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue tracker > wrote: #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Comment (by brads@coraid.com): Sub-meters almost never provide power. So, MeteredBy is required to support submeters. Q.E.D. -- ------------------------------+-------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruc= e Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------+-------------------- Ticket URL: eman _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --_000_38800413B1114A79ABDE405C6CA1ABADciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bruce,

Ok thanks. Well "protocol" even in a general sense doesn't m= ean" information model" or "data model."

For the framework we are not specifying a data model either, we are sp= ecifying an information model. So when you said protocol and meant data mod= el I hope you meant information model.

I'll re-read assuming you meant information model for but reference pl= ease see 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc= 3444.txt which summarizes nicely.

Jp




Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 30, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

I am referencing the data model that
EMAN specifies -- the content in the EMAN
documents.  I was using protocol in a generic
sense but can use a different term if you prefer.
--Bruce


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, John Parello (j= parello) <jparello@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure what you mean by EMAN protocol?
What protocol are you referring to? 

We mention snmp then building protocols in the framework draft but we = stated we are protocol agnostic. Is there some other draft we should be loo= king at?

Jp

Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 27, 2013, at 9:22 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Specifying that the the dedicated meter functionality you describe
is at a layer above the basic EMAN one of devices reporting about
themselves or devices they are connected to is intriguing, and one
I am quite sympathetic to, as a lot of system architectures these days
lack a good sense of layering and so become overly complex. 

This approach to a meter seems to then be properly part of an Energy
Management System that used EMAN and not part of the EMAN
protocol itself.

In re-reviewing the Requirements document, I can't find reference to
dedicated meters as are being described here in a way that would
suggest that any special EMAN content is needed.  I do think it would = be
helpful to have a document describing EMS functions and how they
use EMAN and what else they do.  That seems like the right place
for this dedicated meter proposal.

It does seem clear that at the EMAN layer, the variety of energy
objects that we have - devices, components, and power interfaces -
are sufficient to fully implement it. 

Thanks,

--Bruce



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, John Parello (j= parello) <jparello@cisco.com> wrote:
Metering in not duplicative of powering. It's analogous to layer 3 and= layer 2 topologies respectively.

whether a meter is a type,of device device or any device can per= form metering has nothing to do with the topologies between devices.

So as stated 4.1 is not a reason to drop a layer 3 topology fea= ture in preference to a layer 2 topology. In fact such a feature it has not= hing to do with it 4.1
Jp


Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 24, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

Per the framework (4.1) - "A meter is a type of device and any de= vice can perform metering."
There is no separate type of entity that is a meter.
Thus, metered-by is indicating that there is a direct (one-hop) or ind= irect (multi-hop)
powered-by relationship from the end device to the metering device so it is=  
elaboration of powered-by, not something with distinct meaning.
The other relationships are distinct from powered-by; only
metering is duplicative.
--Bruce



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:49 PM, eman issue trac= ker <= trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed


Comment (by brads@cor= aid.com):

 Sub-meters almost never provide power.  So, MeteredBy is require= d to
 support submeters.  Q.E.D.

--
------------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  bnordman@lbl.gov  |       Owner:  Bruce<= br>      Type:  defect           &= nbsp;|      Status:  new
 Priority:  major             | &nb= sp; Milestone:
Component:  framework         |     Vers= ion:
 Severity:  -               &n= bsp; |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                 &nb= sp;  |
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:1>
eman <http://t= ools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov<= br> 5= 10-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org<= /span>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov<= br> 5= 10-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
--_000_38800413B1114A79ABDE405C6CA1ABADciscocom_-- From jparello@cisco.com Thu May 30 15:33:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FF621F8EFC for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U92JO14n+Ggx for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B7E21F8EF7 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:32:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11413; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369953172; x=1371162772; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=eoVjFCCqdRR7U7F72qzF1K71/OnXKnTrsOHZN09A5Pw=; b=j8I6lWjAJtPyAD4N0aQOmqxCjzUrXQNzjQAYy64V42/ke0GDKSx7uxk6 eZOAVhaaSOiaSdZzaZv97+z4O90SB6aqhxyJYcLGdGdsSxVwDH+S9W8mK Y1nIg7bWgzNWk5HId1MxPF5+I01na9n0JzBifZNqkxrSIiJOevDOX+bWd Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAFzSp1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABXA4JFRDC3JIg7fRZ0giQBAQICAQEBawQHEAIBCA4xBycLFBECBA4FiA0MuyqNawmBGAwEBgEJCIJlYQOXPoEpineFIIMP X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,773,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="216969431" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2013 22:32:51 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4UMWptI007939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2013 22:32:51 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.232]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 30 May 2013 17:32:51 -0500 From: "John Parello (jparello)" To: Bruce Nordman Thread-Topic: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Thread-Index: AQHOXHHi8LmspqWKJ0itWNPABefOsZkdcpuAgADfvUo= Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:32:50 +0000 Message-ID: <06C7C921-686A-466D-9ADE-6E0E1B4ED76D@cisco.com> References: <055.964305967ace508a59178ce1e8196f7b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <070.6088bf1f90de3048ca60ae728c334000@trac.tools.ietf.org>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_06C7C921686A466D9ADE6E0E1B4ED76Dciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: eman mailing list , eman issue tracker Subject: Re: [eman] #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:33:10 -0000 --_000_06C7C921686A466D9ADE6E0E1B4ED76Dciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bruce, Yes, We are not chartered to specify coordination with the grid which would= be a protocol. FSGIM (201p) from ashrae most certainly specifies informat= ion models not just for the grid but for facility devices as well so you ar= e mistaken there. I think you confused protocol and information models again. We are chartered for models for device management and we would be amiss not= to model information that ultimately would be used by EnMS' and grid coord= ination systems (load summaries) I find Brad's reference quite relevant. Both our existing taget EnMS users= (with running code) and the quote he sites suggest imminent need for mode= ling relationships between devices for power and metering. Also we've recognized the need for power, metering and aggregation topologi= es prior to the draft of the requirements. So if your are citing that as mi= ssing from the requirements I think you've uncovered an error in the requir= ements not a justification for removing information models pertaining to re= lationships between devices. Are you suggesting we remove power, metering, and aggregation topology mode= ling? Jp Sent from my iPad (expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) On May 29, 2013, at 9:12 PM, "Bruce Nordman" > wrote: I don't follow why the ESI would be relevant to EMAN. EMAN does not address coordination with the grid as many standards do. Standards designed for grid coordination (e.g. the FSGIM) have different purposes than EMAN and different fundamental models. The question at hand is what EMAN needs. --Bruce On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, eman issue tracker > wrote: #36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed Comment (by brads@coraid.com): Other standards groups view !MeterBy and !PoweredBy as distinct logical functions. For example, NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 states: 3.5.1 Distinction between the Meter and the Energy Services Interface The meter and the ESI (Energy Services Interface) have very different characteristics and functions. The logical separation of the meter and the ESI is a very important forward-looking aspect of the reference model. .. While the ESI and meter are logically viewed as separate devices, this does not preclude the possibility for manufacturers to implement the meter and ESI in one physical device, provided that the flexibility and extensibility to support the Smart Grid vision can be achieved. Most smart meters currently integrate the ESI and meter functionality in one device due to cost considerations. Looking forward, logical separation of the two functions, even if physically integrated, is essential to avoid having the meter become an impediment to innovation in energy services enabled by the Smart Grid." Full Text here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperabil= ity_final.pdf -- ------------------------------+-------------------- Reporter: bnordman@lbl.gov | Owner: Bruc= e Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: framework | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------+-------------------- Ticket URL: eman _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman --_000_06C7C921686A466D9ADE6E0E1B4ED76Dciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bruce,

Yes, We are not chartered to specify coordination with the grid which = would be a protocol. FSGIM  (201p) from ashrae most certainly specifie= s information models not just for the grid but for facility devices as well= so you are mistaken there.

I think you confused protocol and information models again.

We are chartered for models for device management and we would be amis= s not to model information that ultimately would be used by EnMS' and grid = coordination systems (load summaries)

 I find Brad's reference quite relevant. Both our existing taget = EnMS users (with running code) and  the quote he sites suggest imminen= t need for modeling relationships between devices for power and metering.

Also we've recognized the need for power, metering and aggregation top= ologies prior to the draft of the requirements. So if your are citing that = as missing from the requirements I think you've uncovered an error in the r= equirements not a justification for removing information models pertaining to relationships between device= s. 

Are you suggesting we remove power, metering, and aggregation topology= modeling?

Jp

Sent from my iPad 
(expect ridiculous spelling mistakes) 

On May 29, 2013, at 9:12 PM, "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@lbl.gov> wrote:

I don't follow why the ESI would be relevant to EMAN.
EMAN does not address coordination with the grid as
many standards do.  Standards designed for grid
coordination (e.g. the FSGIM) have different purposes
than EMAN and different fundamental models.  The
question at hand is what EMAN needs.
--Bruce


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, eman issue trac= ker <= trac+eman@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
#36: Consider whether MeteredBy relationship is needed

Comment (by brads@coraid.com):

 Other standards groups view !MeterBy and !PoweredBy as distinct logic= al
 functions.  For example, NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Gr= id
 Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 states:

 3.5.1 Distinction between the Meter and the Energy Services Interface=

     The meter and the ESI (Energy Services Interface) have = very different
 characteristics and functions. The logical separation of the meter an= d the
 ESI is a very important forward-looking aspect of the reference model= .
     ..
     While the ESI and meter are logically viewed as separat= e devices, this
 does not preclude the
     possibility for manufacturers to implement the meter an= d ESI in one
 physical device, provided
     that the flexibility and extensibility to support the S= mart Grid
 vision can be achieved. Most smart
     meters currently integrate the ESI and meter functional= ity in one
 device due to cost
     considerations. Looking forward, logical separation of = the two
 functions, even if physically
     integrated, is essential to avoid having the meter beco= me an
 impediment to innovation in energy
     services enabled by the Smart Grid."


 Full Text here:
 http://www.nist.gov/public= _affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf

--
------------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  bnordman@lbl.gov  |       Owner:  Bruce
     Type:  defect           &= nbsp;|      Status:  new
 Priority:  major             | &nb= sp; Milestone:
Component:  framework         |     Vers= ion:
 Severity:  -          = ;       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                 &nb= sp;  |
------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eman/trac/tick= et/36#comment:2>
eman <http://tools.ietf.org/eman/>

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943
_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
--_000_06C7C921686A466D9ADE6E0E1B4ED76Dciscocom_--