Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-eman-framework

Draft Title:  Energy Management Framework

Draft Name: Draft-ietf-eman-framework-13

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational

This is the proper type of RFC as this is the framework for the Energy
Management Working Group's efforts. This includes the MIBs that the group has
built based on this framework.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

     Technical Summary:

        This document defines a framework for Energy Management for
        devices and device components within or connected to
        communication networks.  The framework presents a physical
        reference model and information model. The information
        model consists of an Energy Management Domain as a set of
        Energy Objects. Each Energy Object can be attributed with
        identity, classification, and context.  Energy Objects can
        be monitored and controlled with respect to power, Power
        State, energy, demand, Power Attributes, and battery.
        Additionally the framework models relationships and
        capabilities between Energy Objects.

     Working Group Summary:

     This document is an EMAN Working Group document, adopted in
     12/22/2010, and which passed WG last call in July 2013.  The doc was well
     reviewed in the WG up to WG last call, and was updated to include
     corrections to address comments on 1/11/2014. The draft has subsequently
     been further reviewed by the WG chairs.  We believe it is now stable and
     complete.

     Document Quality:

     In the view of the chairs the document is now of sufficient quality
     to be published as an RFC.  There are now multiple implementations
     by multiple vendors of the EMAN MIBs which have been based on
     this document.

     Personnel:

     Document Shepherd: Thomas Nadeau (tnadeau@lucidvision.com)
     Area Director: Joel Jaeggli (joelja@bogus.com)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd did a full review of the text of version 11 of the draft
as did a numebr of WG members, leading to the authors issuing versions 12 with
various fixes.  The document shepherd has also scanned through the mail
archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft. The
document shepherd's view is that this is now ready for publication.  The notes
from the history of the document are included below as there is some
considerable history regarding this document in the WG:

IETF-83: Nevil replaced Benoit as WG Co-chair early in March 2012
 The Framework draft was well advanced by then, but its five authors
 had a long list of issues to be addressed.

IETF-84: The WG agreed that issues needed to be handled
 systematically, so we began 'authors meetings,' using the DataTracker
 to document issues and their resolutions, with Nevil chairing the
 weekly meetings. Draft revision -05.

IETF-85: 26 issues, 13 resolved, draft version -05.

IETF-86: 14 more issues closed, new issues opened.  Draft revision -07.

June 2013: Bruce Nordman withdrew from being a Framework author
 and an EMAN co-chair.  Tom Nadeau replaced him as EMAN co-chair

IETF-87: Most issues resolved, WG Last Call started for -09 version
 on 11 September 2013.  That brought four detailed reviews; the authors
 worked through the issues raised.

IETF-88: Version -08 (July 2013) discussed, remaining five issues resolved.
 Agreed that the WG would have a two-week discussion period on the
 EMAN list, then the draft authors would make the changes agreed
 at IETF-88 and publish a new version.

 Four more revisions have been published since, the authors (and the WG)
now believe that version -12 is ready to submit to IESG for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

No.  The document shepherd has reviewed the document multiple times, as has my
WG co-chair through various iterations.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes. Disclosure 2161: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2161/

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There have been a number of WG last calls on this document. Between versions 10
and 11, the WG Chairs constrained changes to just those between versions 9 and
10 and discussed this plan during IETF88. There were no comments received on
the list, nor where there any objections to moving the draft forward.

Response to the WG adoption call was <need Benoit's input here>. There has been
significant discussion on-list and at IETF meetings by those who have
implemented the EMAN MIBs which are use this draft as a framework/guide. 
Response to last call depends on the last call issued. The details are provided
below:

IETF-87: Most issues resolved, WG Last Call started for -09 version
 on 11 September 2013.  That brought four detailed reviews; the authors
 worked through the issues raised.

IETF-88: Version -08 (July 2013) discussed, remaining five issues resolved.
 Agreed that the WG would have a two-week discussion period on the
 EMAN list, then the draft authors would make the changes agreed
 at IETF-88 and publish a new version.

 Four more revisions have been published since.
 A final WG LC was called on November 5, 2013 and concluded two weeks
 afterwards.

 The authors (and the WG) now believe that version -12 is ready to submit to
 IESG for publication.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

I ran IDNits on the previous version and discovered one error and some dangling
references which the authors corrected in version 13. There are no errors
found, but still a numebr of warmings that can be corrected by the RFC Editor.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Numerous working group reviews, including detailed reviews by the co-chairs.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).

The IANA considerations section consists of a note to the RFC editor requesting
that IANA create a registry based on detailed instructions in section 12.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

A new registry of new power state sets based on IEEE1621 is requested that
allows for changes through the expert review process.   Experts used to review
this registry should be well skilled in the details from IEEE1621 as well as
energy management practices.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.

Back