From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Mon Feb 6 15:45:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B3611E80B3 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:45:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vpuDcy2MY-TC for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:45:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F257811E8075 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:45:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB992B6FD5E for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:45:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtuO3jt7vvsA for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fenrir.asgaard.org (50-76-34-185-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.76.34.185]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9429B6FD50 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:45:40 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A20A0E59-99EA-413B-9533-72EAA4F0AC01"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:45:37 -0800 Message-Id: <6731655C-241E-40F2-BE9A-DFFA6FE80B9B@cdl.asgaard.org> To: ops-area@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Subject: [OPS-AREA] draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-04 - is there consensus? X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:45:45 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A20A0E59-99EA-413B-9533-72EAA4F0AC01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Greetings, We've WGLC'd this document twice, and each time we've gotten = submissions and suggestions. The authors have updated the text based on = the last WGLC responses. As most of the response has been fairly = positive, we would like to move this version of the document to the IESG = for approval. If anyone has serious objections - please raise them on = the list within 72 hours from now (say midnight Friday, 10 Feb, UTC). = Silence is acceptance :) Chris -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf --Apple-Mail=_A20A0E59-99EA-413B-9533-72EAA4F0AC01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPMGYhAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/MKwH+QFd91Vp6Vep8Q0MVt3HDOol N1xK7wKgzISSOzq//dmxiwxFaPmJTqHrIr/sZMq7cBYTBNY99H753FP7c7jq6IJW H1cAU8ABM6DQ1pTSDPVYg3t6VJvk2UxpuuPXUwSS9V7cKDHiZLNJe6q5ZXNqjZW7 gs6KDRM2YuPnD+iXUxtAnSGeS80B6XI+muitKVFjl6aH8h8yl2e/HB2o84hqXGE9 CvVjMEU5MCw99MBcNbWqKyi5phS54ZBIHjnpPaMHVV7iwcXpYvHwXDJRhHGPI1ya Z3UQ988ZOTkTsbp6cogqsZmKRLsypofG6sRg7xsR+BM/MgJG2JoQvRePTNTQH6k= =INBO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A20A0E59-99EA-413B-9533-72EAA4F0AC01-- From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue Feb 7 05:40:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273F821F8795; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:40:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k7tC9Ao0k8hX; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:40:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4537D21F8751; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:40:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B3320C83; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:40:33 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xn4NKNHL3xc9; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:40:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4D920C82; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:40:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id AE56A1CEEB27; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:40:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:40:15 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Message-ID: <20120207134015.GB24691@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , ops-area@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org References: <6731655C-241E-40F2-BE9A-DFFA6FE80B9B@cdl.asgaard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6731655C-241E-40F2-BE9A-DFFA6FE80B9B@cdl.asgaard.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-04 - is there consensus? X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:40:35 -0000 On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:45:37PM -0800, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > Greetings, > > We've WGLC'd this document twice, and each time we've gotten submissions and suggestions. The authors have updated the text based on the last WGLC responses. As most of the response has been fairly positive, we would like to move this version of the document to the IESG for approval. If anyone has serious objections - please raise them on the list within 72 hours from now (say midnight Friday, 10 Feb, UTC). Silence is acceptance :) > I looked through the diffs and they seem to be fine. Before this document goes to the IESG, we should perhaps clear the open issues listed in Appendix C: o What is the status of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview? It expired on November 2011. o Decide what to do with following references: o What is the status of draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-08? (RFC Ed Queue for 569 days, depends on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-13.txt awaiting author action) o What is the status of draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10? (RFC Ed Queue for 198 days, depends on draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib awaiting AD-Go-Ahead::External Party) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Tue Feb 7 05:56:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75B321F87D3; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:56:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C86fBoK9CnYy; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF52F21F87D2; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:56:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q17DuF4V019983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:56:15 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC047.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.93]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q17DuBOf005984; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:56:15 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by DEMUEXC047.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:56:14 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:56:13 +0100 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A64035E00DF@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <20120207134015.GB24691@elstar.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-04 - is there consensus? Thread-Index: Aczlnhc58deOZbcfTyeMJdQ2pxj+BgAAGSNw References: <6731655C-241E-40F2-BE9A-DFFA6FE80B9B@cdl.asgaard.org> <20120207134015.GB24691@elstar.local> From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2012 13:56:14.0025 (UTC) FILETIME=[4150E390:01CCE5A0] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 2871 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1328622975-00007EDF-23207F6B/0-0/0-0 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-04 - is there consensus? X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:56:20 -0000 Hi Juergen, thank you for the positive feedback. Concerning draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream and draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model, I asked already our AD with an email after the submission of our draft. They seem=20 to be underway and will be available at the latest during the=20 publication of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds as=20 Informational RFC. RFC Editor can then replace the I-D=20 reference with the corresponding RFC reference. Concerning draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview I had to delete the=20 corresponding text, as it expired already in November 2011 and I did not get any answer to my earlier mail to the authors. I assume it is not going to be finalized soon.=20 May be OPSAWG chairs know more than I do and can say a few=20 clarifying words.=20 Cheers,=20 Mehmet=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ops-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > ext Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:40 PM > To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-04 - is there > consensus? >=20 > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:45:37PM -0800, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > We've WGLC'd this document twice, and each time we've gotten submissions > and suggestions. The authors have updated the text based on the last WGLC > responses. As most of the response has been fairly positive, we would like to move > this version of the document to the IESG for approval. If anyone has serious > objections - please raise them on the list within 72 hours from now (say midnight > Friday, 10 Feb, UTC). Silence is acceptance :) > > >=20 > I looked through the diffs and they seem to be fine. Before this > document goes to the IESG, we should perhaps clear the open issues > listed in Appendix C: >=20 > o What is the status of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview? It expired > on November 2011. >=20 > o Decide what to do with following references: >=20 > o What is the status of draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-08? > (RFC Ed Queue for 569 days, depends on > draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-13.txt awaiting author action) >=20 > o What is the status of draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10? > (RFC Ed Queue for 198 days, depends on draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib > awaiting AD-Go-Ahead::External Party) >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From bnordman@lbl.gov Wed Feb 8 23:36:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC09421F85AF; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:36:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAJIjEp6JXJe; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ironport4.lbl.gov (ironport4.lbl.gov [128.3.41.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331FE21F8564; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:36:33 -0800 (PST) X-Ironport-SBRS: 3.8 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusCANJ2M0/RVdI0imdsb2JhbABAA4JNnCgBAYgYAYgKCCIBAQEKCQ0HEgYjgXcUAoEEB10SAQUBIgESCAEZh2ObbgqdHotSHwQJBhseg1kFGmIMCheDIgSIRoxnjh49hCM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,388,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="64566023" Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]) by ironport4.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2012 23:36:32 -0800 Received: by mail-pz0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o14so1629566dad.39 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:36:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.73.105 with SMTP id k9mr2966365pbv.121.1328772992662; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.166.15 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:36:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:36:32 -0800 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: eman mailing list , ops-area@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04190db436faf904b883125b X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8aX6hjx9gaJFeAqUx+GXzVnYUTW7FRXqQayrL9kJlXvfLoUJtmA08/zha9R2jt8sPTC7G Subject: [OPS-AREA] Power Locator X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:36:35 -0000 --f46d04190db436faf904b883125b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 At the last IETF I presented a draft on the concept of a "Power Locator" feature. I am interested to know if anyone knows of any relevant IP claims for what the RFC addresses. The draft is at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nordman-power-locator/ The slides are at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/opsarea-1.pdf Minutes of the presentation are at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/opsarea.txt The abstract in the RFC is: Power Locator draft-nordman-power-locator-00 Abstract This specification addresses how to request that a device should enter a "power locator" mode for a limited period of time. The mode involves a device cycling between a low and high power level in a predictable manner so that a power metering device upstream in the power distribution system can sense the signal and so determine where the device draws its power from. This will be useful in many types of buildings, particularly data centers and large commercial buildings. This draft addresses operation of the device carrying out the request, but not detailed operation of the device that makes the request and interprets the results. This draft is an initial discussion document to generate feedback and improvement. Thank you, --Bruce -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory eetd.lbl.gov/ea/nordman BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --f46d04190db436faf904b883125b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At the last IETF I presented a draft on the concept of a "Power Locato= r" feature.
I am interested to know if anyone knows of any relevant= IP claims for what
the RFC addresses.

The draft is at:
=A0 http= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nordman-power-locator/

The slides are at:
=A0 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/opsarea-1.= pdf

Minutes of the presentation are at:
=A0 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/opsarea.txt
The abstract in the RFC is:

                             Power Locator
                     draft-nordman-power-locator-00

Abstract

   This specification addresses how to request that a device should
   enter a "power locator" mode for a limited period of time.  Th=
e mode
   involves a device cycling between a low and high power level in a
   predictable manner so that a power metering device upstream in the
   power distribution system can sense the signal and so determine where
   the device draws its power from.  This will be useful in many types
   of buildings, particularly data centers and large commercial
   buildings.  This draft addresses operation of the device carrying out
   the request, but not detailed operation of the device that makes the
   request and interprets the results.

   This draft is an initial discussion document to generate feedback and
   improvement.

Thank you,

--Bruce

--
B= ruce Nordman
Lawrence Berk= eley National Laboratory
eetd.lbl.gov/ea/nordman
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

--f46d04190db436faf904b883125b--