From nobody Wed Apr 8 22:23:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF0D1B2BFB; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Py4xVOgpQ-qN; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA3B1B2BFE; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150409052343.32611.45431.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:23:43 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [eman] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:23:45 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ From nobody Wed Apr 8 22:23:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577791B2C0F; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AaK5PjcIv5ac; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA60D1B2C18; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150409052350.29077.39489.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:23:50 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [eman] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:23:53 -0000 Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-23 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ From nobody Wed Apr 8 22:24:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489E91B2C2B; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:24:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TCEn3EO0RWbF; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFF41B2C2C; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:23:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150409052357.28703.46437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:23:57 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [eman] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:24:02 -0000 Set telechat returning item indication ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ From nobody Tue Apr 14 04:56:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234791A8A1E; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vRBqJof3EPv; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD721A8AE1; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150414115602.26727.58907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:02 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 11:56:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Energy Management Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monitoring Authors : Juergen Quittek Rolf Winter Thomas Dietz Filename : draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2015-04-14 Abstract: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines managed objects that provide information on the status of batteries in managed devices. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Apr 14 04:56:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156561A8A7A; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1OvD8Zbcbk9n; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC4B1A8AF2; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150414115603.26727.52496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:56:03 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [eman] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 11:56:26 -0000 A new version (-19) has been submitted for draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Tue Apr 14 04:58:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9983B1A8AA8; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xUFlGU3QvxAs; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (unknown [50.255.148.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67621A8AD4; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.199.12.149] (unknown [12.8.23.12]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0004C328D0A5; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:58:50 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" In-Reply-To: <20150414115603.26727.52496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:58:49 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20150414115603.26727.52496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 11:58:53 -0000 Thanks guys. Does this address all of the outstanding issues or = should we expect another revision? Joel needs to know as this needs to = go on the telechat ASAP. --Tom > On Apr 14, 2015:7:56 AM, at 7:56 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A new version (-19) has been submitted for = draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt >=20 > Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ >=20 > Diff from previous version: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > IETF Secretariat. >=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Apr 16 08:40:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFA51A00D4; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:40:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.612 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4CNoqHTwoHU; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E1191A8939; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAB8109B95; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:40:54 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZP9VrxS3qGVD; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:40:54 +0200 (CEST) X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82170109B61; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:40:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.23]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:40:46 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" , "internet-drafts@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [eman] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt Thread-Index: AQHQdqppCYH3LBXbjE2bp9YxR8KHjJ1PyXcw Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:40:46 +0000 Message-ID: <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E89CE1D19F@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <20150414115603.26727.52496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.99.69] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org" , "eman@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 16 Apr 2015 15:40:58 -0000 Hi Tom, There will be one more revision needed for addressing the issues that Pete = Resnick raised. Thomas Dietz will be post it soon.=20 Then we will present the resulting on this list. Thanks, Juergen > -----Original Message----- > From: eman [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau > Sent: Dienstag, 14. April 2015 13:59 > To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org; eman@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-eman-battery-mi= b- > 19.txt >=20 >=20 > Thanks guys. Does this address all of the outstanding issues or should > we expect another revision? Joel needs to know as this needs to go on th= e > telechat ASAP. >=20 > --Tom >=20 >=20 >=20 > > On Apr 14, 2015:7:56 AM, at 7:56 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > > > > A new version (-19) has been submitted for draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt > > > > Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed > > > > > > The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ > > > > Diff from previous version: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19 > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submi= ssion > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > IETF Secretariat. > > > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman From nobody Thu Apr 16 09:29:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0758A1B331C; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBoc6buNTr2B; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (unknown [50.255.148.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF031B331A; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.108] (unknown [50.255.148.181]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C99C32B524E; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" In-Reply-To: <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E89CE1D19F@PALLENE.office.hd> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:29:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20150414115603.26727.52496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E89CE1D19F@PALLENE.office.hd> To: Juergen Quittek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: "eman@ietf.org" , "eman-chairs@ietf.org" , "internet-drafts@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 16 Apr 2015 16:29:08 -0000 Fantastic. Thanks guys. > On Apr 16, 2015:11:40 AM, at 11:40 AM, Juergen Quittek = wrote: >=20 > Hi Tom, > There will be one more revision needed for addressing the issues that = Pete Resnick raised. > Thomas Dietz will be post it soon.=20 > Then we will present the resulting on this list. > Thanks, > Juergen >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: eman [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas D. = Nadeau >> Sent: Dienstag, 14. April 2015 13:59 >> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org; eman@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification - = draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib- >> 19.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> Thanks guys. Does this address all of the outstanding issues or = should >> we expect another revision? Joel needs to know as this needs to go = on the >> telechat ASAP. >>=20 >> --Tom >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Apr 14, 2015:7:56 AM, at 7:56 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> A new version (-19) has been submitted for = draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib: >>> = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19.txt >>>=20 >>> Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ >>>=20 >>> Diff from previous version: >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-19 >>>=20 >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>=20 >>> IETF Secretariat. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> eman mailing list >> eman@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman >=20 From nobody Fri Apr 17 05:42:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2062D1B2BAE; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id khr_DhLv9eHU; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1711B2BCA; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:42:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150417124248.9625.47651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:42:48 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:42:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Energy Management Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monitoring Authors : Juergen Quittek Rolf Winter Thomas Dietz Filename : draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2015-04-17 Abstract: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines managed objects that provide information on the status of batteries in managed devices. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Apr 17 06:03:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA2D1B2C35 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.612 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tRXXZA1yKzrC for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494E01B2C33 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8432109B72 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:34 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6Pz6z0_3dnd for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:34 +0200 (CEST) X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB35CFF964 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.23]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:03:32 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "eman@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt Thread-Index: AQHQeQwLUcUo5CVIuEKTxnz8fy/clZ1RKDCQ Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:03:32 +0000 Message-ID: <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E89CE1ED17@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <20150417124248.9625.47651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150417124248.9625.47651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.99.69] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 17 Apr 2015 13:03:47 -0000 Dear all, Draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib has been approved by the IESG and is now ready = to be added to the RFC Editor's queue. We had version -17 in the IESG review for a long time. The main remaining i= ssue to solve from version -17 was to address a DISCUSS from AD Pete Resnic= k that was related to the abstraction of the battery charging process chose= n in the MIB module. We agreed with Pete, that we do not want to support ma= ny features from various charging technologies for various battery technolo= gies. We rather want to offer a simple generic model for charging and disch= arging a battery. We needed three revisions to converge on a solution that was agreeable by e= veryone. That's why I describe here the changes from version -17 to the cur= rent -20: 1. We added four paragraphs to the introduction explaining that we the Batt= ery MIB module uses a simple common charging model with batteries being in = one of the states 'charging', 'maintaining charge', 'not charging', and 'di= scharging'. 2. We added a new section 3.5 describing this model and how to control it u= sing object batteryChargingAdminState. 3. in the MIB module we modified object batteryChargingOperState by removin= g state "fastCharging" and we modified object batteryChargingAdminState by = removing states "fastCharging" and "maintainingCharge". Please have a look at the changes and send your comments. Thanks, Juergen > -----Original Message----- > From: eman [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Freitag, 17. April 2015 14:43 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: eman@ietf.org > Subject: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Energy Management Working Group of the > IETF. >=20 > Title : Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monit= oring > Authors : Juergen Quittek > Rolf Winter > Thomas Dietz > Filename : draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt > Pages : 39 > Date : 2015-04-17 >=20 > Abstract: > This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) > for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. > In particular, it defines managed objects that provide information on > the status of batteries in managed devices. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman From nobody Fri Apr 17 12:00:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECCF1B2FBC for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzwE4B_RHSos for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 840541B2F9A for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mb-aye.local ([IPv6:2601:9:3402:7bb1:4123:9e52:891c:6dc8]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t3HJ0Vaf070495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:00:31 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) To: Juergen Quittek , "eman@ietf.org" references: <20150417124248.9625.47651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E89CE1ED17@PALLENE.office.hd> From: joel jaeggli message-id: <5531584E.1000001@bogus.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:30 -0700 user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0 mime-version: 1.0 in-reply-to: <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E89CE1ED17@PALLENE.office.hd> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Gj6W7b82Pai2faXPG1qGv1caOqHTM0TU4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 17 Apr 2015 19:00:37 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Gj6W7b82Pai2faXPG1qGv1caOqHTM0TU4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI, baring any additional commentary I will be approving COB on monday. Thanks for the effort. joel On 4/17/15 6:03 AM, Juergen Quittek wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > Draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib has been approved by the IESG and is now re= ady to be added to the RFC Editor's queue. >=20 > We had version -17 in the IESG review for a long time. The main remaini= ng issue to solve from version -17 was to address a DISCUSS from AD Pete = Resnick that was related to the abstraction of the battery charging proce= ss chosen in the MIB module. We agreed with Pete, that we do not want to = support many features from various charging technologies for various batt= ery technologies. We rather want to offer a simple generic model for char= ging and discharging a battery. >=20 > We needed three revisions to converge on a solution that was agreeable = by everyone. That's why I describe here the changes from version -17 to t= he current -20: >=20 > 1. We added four paragraphs to the introduction explaining that we the = Battery MIB module uses a simple common charging model with batteries bei= ng in one of the states 'charging', 'maintaining charge', 'not charging',= and 'discharging'. >=20 > 2. We added a new section 3.5 describing this model and how to control = it using object batteryChargingAdminState. >=20 > 3. in the MIB module we modified object batteryChargingOperState by rem= oving state "fastCharging" and we modified object batteryChargingAdminSta= te by removing states "fastCharging" and "maintainingCharge". >=20 > Please have a look at the changes and send your comments. >=20 > Thanks, > Juergen >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: eman [mailto:eman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- >> drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: Freitag, 17. April 2015 14:43 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Cc: eman@ietf.org >> Subject: [eman] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts dir= ectories. >> This draft is a work item of the Energy Management Working Group of t= he >> IETF. >> >> Title : Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Mo= nitoring >> Authors : Juergen Quittek >> Rolf Winter >> Thomas Dietz >> Filename : draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20.txt >> Pages : 39 >> Date : 2015-04-17 >> >> Abstract: >> This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB= ) >> for use with network management protocols in the Internet community= =2E >> In particular, it defines managed objects that provide information = on >> the status of batteries in managed devices. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of subm= ission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eman mailing list >> eman@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman >=20 > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman >=20 --Gj6W7b82Pai2faXPG1qGv1caOqHTM0TU4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlUxWE4ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrLtRACeN8cozS6RVIzAXG+1u7UbwULF uyUAn3tee36AGQ0xMsXqZbH0du1quK2J =qwKX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Gj6W7b82Pai2faXPG1qGv1caOqHTM0TU4-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 13:46:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602481B2B42; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:45:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bk109stWexEx; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2EE1A8AAA; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150421204557.8298.89388.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:45:57 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:45:59 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is updated. The original comments were posted for -08 back in December. I don't believe I've ever seen any mail on this one since. (Not unreasonable as Pete's discuss was being handled.) However, I don't see major changes between -08 and -10 so I've not (yet, I will if time) gone fully back over this again. It'd be nice (for me:-) if someone responded to these comments as if they were made on -10 before the telechat. - general: I am not at all sure that this does match the other EMAN documents that have been through IESG evaluation (which is the stated reason for this being last). See my comments below, but this seems to me to not have been updated to reflect where the actual EMAN drafts/RFCs ended up. Is that a fair comment? If so, it really should at least be noted in this draft (or fixed!). If not, then I'm confused and my memory must be worse than I thought. - I support Pete's discuss - general: I don't care much if the title confuses this with an AS or not:-) - general: Given the write-up would it be worth re-casting this into the past tense? (Or a part of the abstract and intro at least and then explaining the use of the present tense elsewhere.) - 1.3, 2nd last para: what is a proxy here? - 1.5: EnMS vs NMS - aren't both likely to be pronounced the same by some folks? Is this term used in other EMAN docs? If not, maybe get rid of it as it'd not then be needed perhaps? - 2.11 - I don't recall printers being mentioned in other EMAN docs, but that's probably my fallible memory. - 2.12 - I thought these devices were out of scope for EMAN? If so don't you need to say? If not, then can you explain how I'm confused given that there were a bunch of times Pete and I asked about energy harvesting setups and were told those were not in scope? - 4.1.2.1 - ACPI is mentioned twice but is never expanded never mind explained. Given that this is the power state thing with which most readers of this RFC will be familiar, I think that is quite an omission, and one that ought be fixed. - 4.1.4 refers to a 2011 draft - surely that's been updated or OBE by now? If "draft" here means something sufficiently different from Internet-draft, then that'd be worth explaining. - section 4 generally seems quite US centric, which is a pity. I'm not suggesting you try fix that now, but nonetheless... a pity. - section 5 seems quite outdated if I correctly recall the discussions we had at iesg evaluation of other EMAN documents. Why wasn't this kept in sync with those discussions? - section 6 is bogus - you said EMAN could also use YANG so SNMP is not sufficient here. I would like to have seen a real analysis of the security and privacy issues related to energy management but that seems to still be missing. And again if I recall correctly that was a topic that you de-scoped for other EMAN documents. Yet again that is not recoreded here. - the secdir review [1] also notes the paucity of the security considerations text (and was only responded to by the AD, not by the authors, even though it raises some specific issues). [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05257.html - The above two points are not DISCUSSes for a couple of reasons. 1) the charter (sadly) doesn't explicitly call for security or privacy to be considered and clearly this group were not interested in those topics, and 2) there seems to be no hope at all that such work would be done given where the WG are in their life-cycle. I would hope that any newly chartered work on energy management would better take into account these real issues. (And should I still be on the IESG, that'd be more than a "hope":-) From nobody Wed Apr 22 13:55:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B971B396F; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:19:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SznQ5aB-1yLC; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D3F1B3969; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ben Campbell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150422191859.25007.29423.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:18:59 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:55:08 -0700 Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 19:19:00 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group to considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like to see at least an explicit mention that power management as described in some of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't fully analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort." If, on the other hand, people think there aren't privacy issues, I'd like to see that assertion along with supporting arguments. From nobody Wed Apr 22 13:55:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C7A1B396B; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jNnbqir8FPmr; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80B61B3981; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:20:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ben Campbell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:20:21 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:55:08 -0700 Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 19:20:26 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [edited to fix missing word] I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group to do considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like to see at least an explicit mention that power management as described in some of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't fully analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort." If, on the other hand, people think there aren't privacy issues, I'd like to see that assertion along with supporting arguments. From nobody Wed Apr 22 14:13:20 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD8F1A899A; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:13:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s8N_-SFcSJm7; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669AD1A87A6; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:13:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150422211308.18222.88700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:13:08 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 21:13:15 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - This draft (section 2) reads more like a collection of use cases than an applicability statement explaining how the EMAN framework can be applied to the different use cases. Only a few use cases provide guidelines wrt EMAN relationships between objects. Let's take an blatant example, section 2.10 "industrial automation networks": where is the applicability statement in that section? I started reading the document with a No Objection in mind, more like Alissa, who wrote: I would suggest that the authors and WG consider the existing text in light of what is involved in an Applicability Statement (RFC 2026 Section 3.2) before that re-evaluation happens. In particular, an Applicability Statement is supposed to describe how, and under what circumstances, one or more technical specifications can be applied to support a particular Internet capability. There are several use cases in this document that provide no explanation of how the EMAN technical specifications can be applied to support the use cases, in particular the ones listed in 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12. Then I thought about a DISCUSS, but Brad already proposed to delete the last paragraph of 2.7 and the sections 2.12 & 2.14. That would address my point. The alternative is to keep those section but to explain how the EMAN framework, as one building/foundational block, would help solving those use cases, and elaborate on which extensions would be required, even succinctly. - What is your message with section 3? I guess you want to say that the EMAN framework (in his entirety of as a building) is applicable to all of these patterns, and that other energy use cases, not described in this document, with those parameters are potentially applicable to the EMAN framework. You might want to stress this point. From nobody Wed Apr 22 14:20:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E113F1A8ACC; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Httm-6XfG2wY; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 116761A8AD0; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:19:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5541; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429737594; x=1430947194; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=caUzNz7g4vxPkD2ylv474lZXSEvWaDTiX7fsy0nzVnk=; b=lCwQ81vjePTXHkTLhZyV8WTB4JZlH40eFQDY8Hu4VxEbm//fZgsuEbZb vsWUHTWLuTrjbFTXJ6SZPVp5Z3XAXJ6Xfbqr7FxsVXgXxi+pZHtlT8/PN KWKs3Zs3wMvlV4wbS5Xpohr9oA1+BTnTqTH5jj5DlD4ZtCOB5TrPoFPo0 w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D9AwBoDzhV/xbLJq1bg15cgxi6W4gWCYFRhgICgXIUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCEBAQQjVQEQCwQUCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAQWIIg24B5UFAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4s3gmSBPREBAk8HgmiBRQWGNI8IhimBIjuDAoJNjgUigjeBPjwxAYEKgTkBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,626,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="439423870" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2015 21:19:52 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3MLJmNr010349; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:19:49 GMT Message-ID: <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:20:29 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell , The IESG References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060503030000040407010304" Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 22 Apr 2015 21:20:14 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060503030000040407010304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote: > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [edited to fix missing word] > > I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are > sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group to do > considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like to see > at least an explicit mention that power management as described in some > of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy > considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't fully > analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort." The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461? For example: In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits. Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization. Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use cases mentioned? Regards, Benoit > > If, on the other hand, people think there aren't privacy issues, I'd like > to see that assertion along with supporting arguments. > > > > > . > --------------060503030000040407010304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote:
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[edited to fix missing word]

I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are
sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group to do
considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like to see
at least an explicit mention that power management as described in some
of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy
considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't fully
analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort."
The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461?
For example:
   In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal
   sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits.
   Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy
   protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of
   individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization.
Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use cases mentioned?

Regards, Benoit

If, on the other hand, people think there aren't privacy issues, I'd like
to see that assertion along with supporting arguments.




.

--------------060503030000040407010304-- From nobody Wed Apr 22 15:20:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11611B37B0; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sk6Jxkl4Gjcc; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (unknown [50.255.148.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DA61B35E3; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.108] (unknown [50.255.148.181]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9C33328A29; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:20:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> To: Ben Campbell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 22 Apr 2015 22:20:34 -0000 > On Apr 22, 2015:5:51 PM, at 5:51 PM, Ben Campbell = wrote: >=20 > On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Benoit Claise wrote: >=20 >> On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss >>>=20 >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to = all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Please refer to = http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>=20 >>> [edited to fix missing word] >>>=20 >>> I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are >>> sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group = to do >>> considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like to = see >>> at least an explicit mention that power management as described in = some >>> of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy >>> considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't = fully >>> analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort." >> The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC = 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461? >> For example: >>=20 >> In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal >> sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits. >> Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy >> protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring = of >> individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization. >=20 > It would help if the security considerations in the applicability = statement referenced those docs :-) Even so, references scoped to the = MIBs are not completely satisfying when the draft says it is equally = applicable to things like YANG and NETCONF. >=20 > (By the way, it looks like the references to 7460 and 7461 elsewhere = in the draft still point to outdated drafts.) >=20 >>=20 >> Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document = review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use cases = mentioned? >=20 > That would be nice--really, each use case may have different privacy = issues. But I agree with Stephen that it's kind of late to ask the WG to = analyze those. >=20 > Would you consider adding something to the effect of the following to = the security considerations? >=20 > NEW: >=20 > " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power = monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. = Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may have = similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this document. = There may be additional privacy considerations specific to each use = case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. =E2=80=9C This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only = question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP = MIBs. Would this fix resolve Stephen=E2=80=99s comments as well? =E2=80=94Tom From nobody Wed Apr 22 15:21:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBE11B2A99; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:52:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83I_FXF5kW55; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDF01B2A96; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3MLpwFJ061248 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:52:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Benoit Claise" Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:51:58 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:23 -0700 Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 22 Apr 2015 21:52:17 -0000 On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Benoit Claise wrote: > On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut >> this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [edited to fix missing word] >> >> I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are >> sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group >> to do >> considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like to >> see >> at least an explicit mention that power management as described in >> some >> of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy >> considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't >> fully >> analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort." > The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC > 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461? > For example: > > In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal > sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits. > Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy > protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring > of > individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization. It would help if the security considerations in the applicability statement referenced those docs :-) Even so, references scoped to the MIBs are not completely satisfying when the draft says it is equally applicable to things like YANG and NETCONF. (By the way, it looks like the references to 7460 and 7461 elsewhere in the draft still point to outdated drafts.) > > Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document > review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use > cases mentioned? That would be nice--really, each use case may have different privacy issues. But I agree with Stephen that it's kind of late to ask the WG to analyze those. Would you consider adding something to the effect of the following to the security considerations? NEW: " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may have similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this document. There may be additional privacy considerations specific to each use case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. " From nobody Wed Apr 22 15:22:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070E01B36E1; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9E7oF64bvl5x; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0821B3A9F; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640A0BEDF; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:51 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTZL2l-wSL1b; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:50 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.17.62]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D52CBEDE; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:50 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <55381EFD.60400@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:49 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" , Ben Campbell References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 22 Apr 2015 22:21:59 -0000 On 22/04/15 23:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: >> > " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may have similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this document. There may be additional privacy considerations specific to each use case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. “ > This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP MIBs. > > Would this fix resolve Stephen’s comments as well? Basically, yes. I think a truth-in-advertising statement like that would be useful. Thanks, S. From nobody Wed Apr 22 15:40:20 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF481B3AE2; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkHKm2RlbVDN; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (unknown [50.255.148.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FE21B3ADC; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.108] (unknown [50.255.148.181]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C372A3328E76; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" In-Reply-To: <55381EFD.60400@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:40:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> <55381EFD.60400@cs.tcd.ie> To: Stephen Farrell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 22 Apr 2015 22:40:19 -0000 Cool. If that is the case, then I=E2=80=99d like to direct the = document editors to make this change ASAP and re-spin the draft.=20 =E2=80=94Tom > On Apr 22, 2015:6:21 PM, at 6:21 PM, Stephen Farrell = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 22/04/15 23:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: >>>> " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power = monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. = Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may have = similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this document. = There may be additional privacy considerations specific to each use = case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. =E2=80=9C >> This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only = question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP = MIBs. >>=20 >> Would this fix resolve Stephen=E2=80=99s comments as well? >=20 > Basically, yes. I think a truth-in-advertising statement like that > would be useful. >=20 > Thanks, > S. >=20 From nobody Wed Apr 22 20:07:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC521B2E3B; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:03:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q5eNGCMuV2EC; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3FF21B2E3A; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3N33C7N089718 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:03:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:03:12 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:07:58 -0700 Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 23 Apr 2015 03:03:32 -0000 On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: >> On Apr 22, 2015:5:51 PM, at 5:51 PM, Ben Campbell >> wrote: >> >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Benoit Claise wrote: >> >>> On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to >>>> all >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut >>>> this >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> DISCUSS: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> [edited to fix missing word] >>>> >>>> I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations >>>> are >>>> sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group >>>> to do >>>> considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like >>>> to see >>>> at least an explicit mention that power management as described in >>>> some >>>> of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy >>>> considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't >>>> fully >>>> analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on >>>> effort." >>> The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC >>> 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461? >>> For example: >>> >>> In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal >>> sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits. >>> Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy >>> protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of >>> individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization. >> >> It would help if the security considerations in the applicability >> statement referenced those docs :-) Even so, references scoped to the >> MIBs are not completely satisfying when the draft says it is equally >> applicable to things like YANG and NETCONF. >> >> (By the way, it looks like the references to 7460 and 7461 elsewhere >> in the draft still point to outdated drafts.) >> >>> >>> Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document >>> review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use >>> cases mentioned? >> >> That would be nice--really, each use case may have different privacy >> issues. But I agree with Stephen that it's kind of late to ask the WG >> to analyze those. >> >> Would you consider adding something to the effect of the following to >> the security considerations? >> >> NEW: >> >> " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power >> monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. >> Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may >> have similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this >> document. There may be additional privacy considerations specific to >> each use case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. “ > > This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only > question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP > MIBs. I suggested mentioning Yang here because section 1.1 mentioned that the information model was equally applicable to non-SNMP approaches such as YANG and NETCOMF. I'd be willing to entertain arguments that such things are not really applications of this spec, i.e. I won't complain if you drop that sentence. > > Would this fix resolve Stephen’s comments as well? > > —Tom From nobody Thu Apr 23 00:01:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCB31B2E88; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L4Kv_YXcEoh2; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C83B1B2C58; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:01:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4313; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429772487; x=1430982087; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qhu49uKs05+jcRBMsRoeDBtz6w5zJriOamlhHDdJ2iM=; b=k1ZbVAog20v8jBoTAgdEAjRyJGPGn2gxj9tZn+QgadRgE9QLHAXcOVJp haqllATCC1Hm0Sr6vb8ReAtXDHonvryRR2PE3KQ1tJr4qbXx0S3GU8dd1 FcuB/nYO3TZiQpJY9FRUMFQUCZq2xGEu9QvGlyyoYBLaxoJC3UmvWv/Lk 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D9AwDWlzhV/xbLJq1bg15cgxq7IogYCYFRhgICgXEUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCEBAQQjDwEFQAEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEFAgEBBYgiDbcUlRkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXgSGKFoJkgT0RAQJPB4JogUUBBIY3jwuGMIEiO4MEgk6ODSOBZFOBPjwxAYEKgTkBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,629,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="440458421" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2015 07:01:25 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3N71PfH017013; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:01:25 GMT Message-ID: <553898EE.4020104@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:02:06 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell , "Thomas D. Nadeau" References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 23 Apr 2015 07:01:30 -0000 Hi Ben, Thanks for proposing text (btw, it makes a lot of sense) That surely helps the authors. Regards, Benoit > On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > >>> On Apr 22, 2015:5:51 PM, at 5:51 PM, Ben Campbell >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Benoit Claise wrote: >>> >>>> On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss >>>>> >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut >>>>> this >>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please refer to >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [edited to fix missing word] >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations are >>>>> sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the >>>>> group to do >>>>> considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like >>>>> to see >>>>> at least an explicit mention that power management as described in >>>>> some >>>>> of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy >>>>> considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't >>>>> fully >>>>> analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on effort." >>>> The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC >>>> 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461? >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal >>>> sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits. >>>> Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy >>>> protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of >>>> individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization. >>> >>> It would help if the security considerations in the applicability >>> statement referenced those docs :-) Even so, references scoped to >>> the MIBs are not completely satisfying when the draft says it is >>> equally applicable to things like YANG and NETCONF. >>> >>> (By the way, it looks like the references to 7460 and 7461 elsewhere >>> in the draft still point to outdated drafts.) >>> >>>> >>>> Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document >>>> review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use >>>> cases mentioned? >>> >>> That would be nice--really, each use case may have different privacy >>> issues. But I agree with Stephen that it's kind of late to ask the >>> WG to analyze those. >>> >>> Would you consider adding something to the effect of the following >>> to the security considerations? >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power >>> monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy >>> implications. Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms >>> (e.g. YANG) may have similar implications, which are beyond this >>> scope of this document. There may be additional privacy >>> considerations specific to each use case; this document has not >>> attempted to analyze these. “ >> >> This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only >> question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced >> SNMP MIBs. > > I suggested mentioning Yang here because section 1.1 mentioned that > the information model was equally applicable to non-SNMP approaches > such as YANG and NETCOMF. I'd be willing to entertain arguments that > such things are not really applications of this spec, i.e. I won't > complain if you drop that sentence. > >> >> Would this fix resolve Stephen’s comments as well? >> >> —Tom > . > From nobody Thu Apr 23 04:35:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157DD1B2DB8; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yhIGUtfVJVDz; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1F81B2DB1; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:35:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Haberman" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150423113547.27316.23286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:35:47 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 11:35:53 -0000 Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope, especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status. From nobody Thu Apr 23 11:24:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620201A701D for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ORFN4Q4058e for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe1.lbl.gov (fe1.lbl.gov [128.3.41.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 792811ACE65 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Ironport-SBRS: 5.5 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2B7BwADODlVmzFSfUpYA4JFgRlcBYMVtGeGC4duM4FHAQuGAgKBMAc5EwEBAQEBAQERAQEBAQEGCwsJIS5BBYNbAQEDAQEBAQ8RSwsFCwsLMAcCAiIFDQEFARwGEwgBGYgBCAUIq1w+MYs4lG0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXCostgmSBPREBAj8MBAcRgleBRQWGPIUYg1aGIYY0gSI8gwmPGhIjgRWBA4EFIhwVgVweMQGBCoE5AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,633,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="84127699" Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by fe1.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2015 11:22:56 -0700 Received: by wgen6 with SMTP id n6so27260288wge.3 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:22:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=v6rbfbvesfL7IFmGDSAZsgdmBBTjVpkEUZiscBw4v1A=; b=OHR0xKDXolpRwn4EhATUFIGSn2H7WLatyWksSwKo1b8aZkPEt6NmwkHXm446QSY5GH AypDB7rcNX+MNam3uUfn1tk3YmvjOpMB6XgvMPxhDgOHDY1rwgLPLSNV7WnGvKjYCYgu bJ2X3fEKTGB9XIG7x+MOAWjo8IvGYVtTcd3crZHmVxYioKmcDO8FZQ3EqUxbPUkawYVU AcV65/xbH1mKJT74ag3WvltsvgpLKiLbOYpWjpHoaKHlWOsV/6jz5xnikol4Bb6fiHqb 27dxAYZTIgW/4g21WEkuYH88t7ZO5kEMR+jVSGP8+sTlHZYFp2oo5Fq7ivP4B9UEqLff RwfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTMtK7y0SfFsAf7yAQMLTii+xaYRD/6iYIaIHaTgncvaV72rjiysArnRNeTZdGaq4fEwMUHNsM4hTFqdUnzemNb6Oc42MMXwH5hR62KpXjXjnMjYoGRHY7yAzpGwBLa//cV2Qy X-Received: by 10.180.219.42 with SMTP id pl10mr8357676wic.70.1429813373679; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:22:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.219.42 with SMTP id pl10mr8357660wic.70.1429813373579; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.10.12 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:22:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150423113547.27316.23286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150423113547.27316.23286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:22:53 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f9903a3f1f0514685e91 Archived-At: Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman mailing list , The IESG Subject: Re: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 23 Apr 2015 18:24:35 -0000 --001a1135f9903a3f1f0514685e91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree with Brad that these deletions are appropriate. I never liked 2.14 (power capping). For 2.12 (off-grid), the standard is completely applicable in that context but I think the use case did not add anything new so no need to include. For security, and privacy, I agree they are important and support any needed improvements to the document to address them, but lack knowledge to contribute to deciding what those should be. Thank you, --Bruce On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope, > especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This > DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to > delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero > building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping). > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --001a1135f9903a3f1f0514685e91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree = with Brad that these deletions are appropriate.
I never liked 2.14= (power capping).=C2=A0 For 2.12 (off-grid),
the standard is compl= etely applicable in that context but I
think the use case did not = add anything new so no
need to include.=C2=A0

For se= curity, and privacy, I agree they are important and
support any ne= eded improvements to the document to
address them, but lack knowle= dge to contribute to deciding
what those should be.

T= hank you,

--Bruce

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-crit= eria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman= -applicability-statement/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope,
especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This
DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero
building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status.


_______________________________________________
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
--001a1135f9903a3f1f0514685e91-- From nobody Thu Apr 23 18:45:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9A91B348A; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:45:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kWjzjxh5Mhji; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AC871B2CF7; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7412; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429839924; x=1431049524; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=RnG0pz7QWtRSBWTAlDoGV3HFSJ2KEjC98J6ti9FgGCc=; b=EJ8MOIQ/NhCvjxhrCpHw2KyYd30O+36VRwTW/qZQ9K/Pvx58XF42zCpj MtulHo8KKWEVXGAaNE68iZr+ennY8yv/7S+iieIUvPa3bCdSXRyWDVBdK rRHPFPdb/TbQxnwF9VgKlGeHgSQPT6fCfV+iok1VqsAGzTpO5+W9BqyL5 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DsBgCynzlV/4YNJK1bgkVHUlwFt32NPTyBegELhgICgTNMAQEBAQEBgQuEIAEBAQQBAQFrCxACAQgRAwECJAQHJwsUCQgCBAENBQmIIg3MKAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLN4JkgT0RAQI+DQQHhC0FhjyLDoQBhjSBIjyDCZBkI2CBJxwVgTxvAYEKOYEAAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,636,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="414352904" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2015 01:45:23 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3O1jNfG008774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:45:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.29]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:45:23 -0500 From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" To: Brian Haberman , The IESG Thread-Topic: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQfbmq/GXtWlDjfEGVomBJRiui8Z1bQ6uA Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:45:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150423113547.27316.23286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150423113547.27316.23286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [10.154.204.168] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D15EEB5740C72moulchanciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org" , "eman@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Apr 2015 01:45:57 -0000 --_000_D15EEB5740C72moulchanciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Brian, Some of the specific use cases, you are referring had been provided as feed= back to WG (email or meetings) when the draft was draft was presented. It was felt that it would be useful "unique, non-overlapping" set of use c= ases (scenarios) of interest to energy management. It may be that after the other MIB drafts have evolved over the years, it m= ay be that we solve only a subset of use cases. Thanks Mouli From: Brian Haberman > Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:35 AM To: The IESG > Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org" >, "eman@ietf.org" > Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-s= tatement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope, especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status. _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman --_000_D15EEB5740C72moulchanciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <83D3D527080FCD4E9FBB55A7AE5646F6@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi  Brian,

Some of the specific use cases, you are referring had been provided as= feedback to WG (email or meetings)  when the draft was draft was pres= ented. 
It was felt that it would be useful  "unique, non-overlappin= g" set of use cases (scenarios) of interest to energy management. = ;
It may be that after the other MIB drafts have evolved over the years,= it may be that we solve only a subset of use cases. 

Thanks
Mouli




From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:35 = AM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org" <eman-chairs@ietf.org>, "eman@ietf.org" <eman@= ietf.org>
Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Di= scuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMM= ENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all<= /div>
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thi= s
introductory paragraph, however.)


for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:



----------------------------------------------------------------------=
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------=

The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope,
especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This
DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to<= /div>
delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero
building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping).


----------------------------------------------------------------------=
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------=

Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status.


_______________________________________________
eman mailing list

 --_000_D15EEB5740C72moulchanciscocom_-- From nobody Sun Apr 26 20:03:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71CB1A8AB3 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:03:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3hMFzJ4dH7GC for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vms173021pub.verizon.net (vms173021pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDC7A1A8A82 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_eULWJgecLgKsC+nQZOPymQ)" Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([96.242.162.223]) by vms173021.mailsrvcs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.32.0 64bit (built Jul 16 2014)) with ESMTPA id <0NNG00DCE34AYT60@vms173021.mailsrvcs.net> for eman@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:02:40 -0500 (CDT) X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=E6x6fhYN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=t4Wgun13lU4Q+Md2CCIAfQ==:117 a=naziTCeN6agA:10 a=o1OHuDzbAAAA:8 a=oR5dmqMzAAAA:8 a=-9mUelKeXuEA:10 a=e9J7MTPGsLIA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=9iDbn-4jx3cA:10 a=cKsnjEOsciEA:10 a=gZbpxnkM3yUA:10 a=wnRk2I__AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=INrW6jj4Kxu5uYpldbsA:9 a=UlTmSpXUd-D2wxLb:21 a=hfGCuXSZMLHRLzUZ:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=mYAOWqAtFUkA:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=7QNehSYA6jMh4W7k514A:9 a=sY0_KWJFXR8pTlsT:21 a=YpeOjq-meAWtDTHn:21 a=sWuAGpNCo6M6jNoo:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 Message-id: <553DA67B.5030504@verizon.net> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:01:15 -0400 From: Brad Schoening User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 To: eman@ietf.org References: <20150423113547.27316.23286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-reply-to: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 03:03:00 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_eULWJgecLgKsC+nQZOPymQ) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Mouli, Your comments address the intent for adding these use cases, but they don't respond to the critique of them, and therefore don't justify them. Can you please respond to Pete & Alissa's questions. Otherwise, let's delete them as Bruce & I have suggested. Regards, Brad On 4/23/2015 9:45 PM, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Some of the specific use cases, you are referring had been provided as > feedback to WG (email or meetings) when the draft was draft was > presented. > It was felt that it would be useful "unique, non-overlapping" set of > use cases (scenarios) of interest to energy management. > It may be that after the other MIB drafts have evolved over the years, > it may be that we solve only a subset of use cases. > > Thanks > Mouli > > > > > From: Brian Haberman > > Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:35 AM > To: The IESG > > Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org " > >, "eman@ietf.org > " > > Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on > draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope, > especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This > DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to > delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero > building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping). > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status. > > > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman > > > > _______________________________________________ > eman mailing list > eman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- *Brad Schoening* Email: --Boundary_(ID_eULWJgecLgKsC+nQZOPymQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Mouli,

Your comments address the intent for adding these use cases, but they don't respond to the critique of them, and therefore don't justify them.  Can you please respond to Pete & Alissa's questions.  Otherwise, let's delete them as Bruce & I have suggested.

Regards,

Brad

On 4/23/2015 9:45 PM, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) wrote:
Hi  Brian,

Some of the specific use cases, you are referring had been provided as feedback to WG (email or meetings)  when the draft was draft was presented. 
It was felt that it would be useful  "unique, non-overlapping" set of use cases (scenarios) of interest to energy management. 
It may be that after the other MIB drafts have evolved over the years, it may be that we solve only a subset of use cases. 

Thanks
Mouli




From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:35 AM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "eman-chairs@ietf.org" <eman-chairs@ietf.org>, "eman@ietf.org" <eman@ietf.org>
Subject: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The draft still calls out some use cases that appear out of scope,
especially after the discussion around the EMAN MIB document. This
DISCUSS is a placeholder to address one of the author's suggestion to
delete: 1) the use cases in section 2.7 last paragraph (net-zero
building), 2) 2.12 (off-grid devices), and 3) 2.14 (power capping).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing the issue of the document's status.


_______________________________________________
eman mailing list

 

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman


--
Brad Schoening
Email:
--Boundary_(ID_eULWJgecLgKsC+nQZOPymQ)--