Title: Energy Object Context MIB
Editors: Brad Schoening, Mouli Chandramouli and Bruce Nordman
Intended status: Informational
(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 last of the EMAN WG drafts, it provides
a complete overview of EMAN, and provides clear guidance for its
(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
The objective of Energy Management (EMAN) is to provide an
energy management framework for networked devices. This
document presents the applicability of the EMAN information
model in a variety of scenarios with cases and target devices.
These use cases are useful for identifying requirements for the
framework and MIBs. Further, we describe the relationship of
the EMAN framework to relevant other energy monitoring standards
Working Group Summary
Version -00 of the draft was published in December 2011, shortly
after the WG was chartered. The authors (and WG chairs) felt that
since there were many aspects of EMAN that neededed a lot of
discussion, it would be sensible to publish its Applicability
Statement after all the other EMAN drafts.
This draft has been revised at intervals as details of EMAN were
finalised. It's WG Last Call for version 06 ran from 26 June 2014 to
2 July 2014. Since then it's authors have made further revisions,
in response to its ongoing discussion.
Document Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee
Responsible Area Director: Joel Jaegli
(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.
I have read the draft carefully. I believe it is a good overall
summary of EMAN, with realistic use cases and a good survey comparing
it with similar existing energy-related standards.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
(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 known problems.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
This draft has no IPR disclosures.
(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 is strong consensus for this draft within the EMAN WG.
(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
(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.
The nits checker gave a few warnings, I believe the RFC Editor will
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
This draft is a survey/summary document, it did not need any formal
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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
(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.
(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
(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
This draft has no IANA Considerations.
(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
No new registries.
(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.
This draft has no formal material that can be chacked automatically.