Shepherd writeup
rfc7603-11

Document:  draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08
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 
potential uses.

 (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:
  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 
  and architectures. 

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.

Document Quality

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.

Personnel

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?

No.

 (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 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.

Yes.

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

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
     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.

The nits checker gave a few warnings, I believe the RFC Editor will 
fix those.

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

This draft is a survey/summary document, it did not need any formal 
reviews.

(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).

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
     registries.

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.

-----
Back