Ballot for draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Thanks for addressing my Comments and explaining the error of my Discuss.
Thanks for addressing my comments. I still think the use of normative language in this bit of Section 5 text is a little strange, but I can also understand an argument for having it there: Implementers SHOULD use appropriate privacy protections. Battery monitoring of devices used by individuals SHOULD only occur with proper authorization.
Thanks for addressing my points.
I support Pete's discuss.
Thanks for making the updates to the security considerations that were made across 3 documents and reflected our work on the updated SNMP security boilerplate for IoT security and privacy.
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. I sent my suggested update to the batteryChargingAdminState text to the authors.
- Please see. [1] [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib/ballot/#stephen-farrell - I support Pete's discuss. And echo his concern that similar comments raised before on the reqs and framework don't seem to have resulted in the wg considering these issues. - I did not have time to fully read this sorry but I've also in the past asked if there are no issues with solar powered devices. I again see no mention of solar power nor of charge controllers (is that the same as a batter controller?) so I again agree with Pete that the coverage here doesn't seem correct - Pete's more concerned with BIG devices whereas I'm more concerned with those that might be deployed in odd and out of the way places:-)