Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monitoring
draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-20

[Ballot discuss]
Sorry to place a small Discuss on a document I think should be
published.

The URL  in the Description
clause of batteryTechnology and in section 3.2 doesn't resolve.

You probably need http://www.iana.org/assignments/power-state-sets

[Ballot comment]
The imports clause helpfully uses comments to indicate the RFCs that
contain the modules from which the imports are made. I think it would
be helpful if these were actually references as well.

The way to handle that without breaking the rule about references from
within the module itself is to add a little bit of text earlier in the
document saying something like...

  This document makes imports from [RFC2578], [RFC3411], [RFC2579],
  [RFC2580], and [RFC6933].

...and obviously add the references.

---

Maybe discuss with Benoit about suitable wording around the issue of
writeable objects in MIB modules.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm updating my ballot to reflect the discussion we've had so far. My conclusion is that energy generation systems (solar, wind, or nuclear and coal for that matter) are out of scope for EMAN generally, and batteries used in such systems are out of sope for the battery MIB. I'm a bit disappointed by that, but I won't object to the document if that is the intent of the WG. However, if that is true, it really needs to be said in the introduction to this document, and likely should be even more explicit in the applicability statement document. I suggest inserting the following paragraph in section 1, just before the discussion of UPS devices. (Feel free to edit.)

  Specifically out of scope for this document are batteries that are
  part of energy generation systems. Such systems, whether they are
  off-grid power generation systems (e.g., solar, wind, fuel-cell) that
  maintain their own storage or traditional small- or large-scale
  generators (anything from microgenerators to utility-scale power
  plants), have much different monitoring and control interfaces to
  their battery systems than those of the type of network-attached
  devices that this document is trying to support. See
  [draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement] for more information
  regarding the applicability of this technology.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks Jürgen for posting a new version, and addressing most of my points.

One left, regarding the Security Considerations. Kathleen should provide her feedback on this one.

5. Security Considerations

  There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module
  with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write.  Such objects may be
  considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.  The
  support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper
  protection can have a negative effect on network operations.  These
  are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

For consistency with the other EMAN drafts, and the new boilerplate, this should be changed to  "open devices to attack"

Also, in the other 2 EMAN drafts, the following paragraph has been added:

      In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal
      sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits.
      Implementors of this specification should use appropriate
      privacy protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and
      monitoring of individuals and homes should only occur with
      proper authorization.

You have inserted (to address this point):

  Implementers SHOULD use appropriate privacy protections.  Battery
  monitoring of devices used by individuals SHOULD only occur with
  proper authorization.  See the relevant discussion in Section 9 of
  the Requirements for Energy Management [RFC6988].

Shouldn't we be consistent between the 3 EMAN docs?

See http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-17.txt for the diff

[Ballot comment]

- 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:-)

[Ballot discuss]
I've been concerned since the requirements document came out, and mentioned it again when the framework document came out, that this WG has not taken seriously energy management that is beyond the realm of very small devices with very small power consumption and a limited kind of battery bank. This MIB is a clear indication to me that the WG still has not taken larger more complicated systems into account. I am not an expert on these systems; I know a limited amount from the work I do with renewable energy systems. But there are obvious omissions from this MIB that make me believe that the WG did little research into the needs of systems that I am sure would be using this kind of MIB. I have below some additions that I think are obviously missing, but I think it is worth some research to find out if there are other features missing.

(If MIBs are sufficiently extensible in current management systems that the following can be added later without causing disruption, then I'm happy to clear my DISCUSS if these things can be added later with ease. But I fear things may get locked-in in ways that will make it difficult to add in the future.)

3.1: Some battery characteristics that seem obviously missing from the list:

- Recharge voltage: The low voltage at which the battery should be recharged, independent of raising an alarm
- Equalization voltage: The voltage to be held for the equalization portion of the charging cycle
- Bulk voltage: The voltage to rise to during the bulk stage of the charging cycle before transitioning to absorption
- Absorb voltage: The voltage to be held for the absorption stage of the charging cycle
- Float voltage: The voltage to be held by the charger after charging is complete
- Absorb time: The time to spend in the absorption portion of the charging cycle
- Temperature compensation: The value by which to change the charging voltage per degree based on the battery temperature

These are features of batteries that a charger must know about in order to properly charge them, and they are characteristics that are specified by the battery manufacturer. These are all read-only. Some of them *might* be a range of acceptable values, so there might need to be some accommodation for that too.

Also, adding a notification for *high* battery voltage seems important.

3.2: Why are the three types of lead-acid batteries -- Flooded, Gel, and Absorbed Glass Mat (AGM) -- not separated out as different types? Those types of batteries have very different charging characteristics, which a charging system is going to want to retrieve so that it can properly handle the battery, and they should have separate entries.

The following are concerns I have with items in the current MIB:

4:

What is the difference between batteryActualCharge and batteryActualCapacity? When could these values be different? (Similarly with the alarms that distinguish between the two.)

The charging states (unknown(1), charging(2), fastCharging(3), maintainingCharge(4), noCharging(5), discharging(6)) and associated other data relating to charging states seems a bit odd. They appear more to be states of the charger than states of the battery. Many batteries don't "know" whether they are being charged vs. fast-charged vs. maintenance charged. If we are going to start introducing charger states into what the battery MIB, I think charge states like "absorbing charge", "bulk charge", and "equalizing charge" might also make sense. But this seems like a weird road to go down.

[Ballot comment]
4:

The description of batteryType says:

          "This object indicates the type of battery.
          It distinguishes between primary (not rechargeable)
          batteries, rechargeable (secondary) batteries and capacitors
          which are not really batteries but often used in the same
          way as a battery.

The missing serial comma here is important, and you also need to put a comma before "which", or enclose that phrase in parentheses:

NEW
          "This object indicates the type of battery.
          It distinguishes between primary (not rechargeable)
          batteries, rechargeable (secondary) batteries, and
          capacitors (which are not really batteries but often used in
          the same way as a battery).

Rechargeable batteries *are* really batteries (which the original sentence denies), and all capacitors are "not really batteries", not just the ones that are used in the same way as a battery.

[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to see if an update to the security considerations for MIBs could be made.  There are 3 different drafts that have IoT related security & privacy concerns that are not covered by the current template well enough.  Concerns were raised in each of the SecDir reviews as well as in my own.  I proposed some edits to the energy-aware mib that would also apply to this draft.

See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib/ballot/

[Ballot comment]
Does battery storage for energy generated by solar/wind fit into this mib?  I see that UPS is called out separately, but am wondering if battery storage has something separate or would have to fit here for now?  I'm asking as the implications change in terms of security, privacy and the possible effects.  The control would be the same (authenticated and secure SNMPv3 access), but considerations would change.  The security considerations called out are specific to data loss, but if power to homes or buildings from solar/wind batteries is part of this, then the implications go far beyond data.

In the home, if someone were interested in doing damage, they could easily change the settings that result in an alarm to prevent alarms from going off or to make them go off more as an annoyance.  I'm not asking for that to be called out specifically.

[Ballot discuss]
1.
There is a discrepancy between section 3.2 "Battery Technologies" and the related section 6.2 (IANA considerations)
Section 3.2 mentions:

    New entries should be added to the IANA
    registry only if the respective technologies are in commercial use
    and relevant to standardized battery monitoring over the Internet.

Section 6.2 mentions:

    Experts must check for sufficient relevance of a battery technology to be added.


If the sentence in 3.2 is the guideline for the Expert Review, it should be mentioned in section 6.2. Alternatively a pointer to it should be provided.

Here is a proposal.

OLD:

3.2.  Battery Technologies

  Static information in the batteryTable includes battery type and
  technology.  The battery type distinguishes primary (not
  rechargeable) batteries from rechargeable (secondary) batteries and
  capacitors.  The battery technology describes the actual technology
  of a battery, which typically is a chemical technology.

  Since battery technologies are subject of intensive research and
  widely used technologies are often replaced by successor technologies
  within an few years, the list of battery technologies was not chosen
  as a fixed list.  Instead, IANA has created a registry for battery
  technologies at http://www.iana.org/assignments/eman where numbers
  are assigned to battery technologies (TBD).

  The table below shows battery technologies known today that are in
  commercial use with the numbers assigned to them by IANA.  New
  entries can be added to the IANA registry if new technologies are
  developed or if missing technologies are identified.  Note that there
  exists a huge number of battery types that are not listed in the IANA
  registry.  Many of them are experimental or cannot be used in an
  economically useful way.  New entries should be added to the IANA
  registry only if the respective technologies are in commercial use
  and relevant to standardized battery monitoring over the Internet.

      +----------------------------+----------+
      | battery technology        | assigned |
      |                            |  number  |
      +----------------------------+----------+
      | Unknown                    |        1 |
      | Other                      |        2 |
      | Zinc-carbon                |        3 |
      | Zinc chloride              |        4 |
      | Nickel oxyhydroxide        |        5 |
      | Lithium-copper oxide      |        6 |
      | Lithium-iron disulfide    |        7 |
      | Lithium-manganese dioxide  |        8 |
      | Zinc-air                  |        9 |
      | Silver oxide              |      10 |
      | Alkaline                  |      11 |
      | Lead acid                  |      12 |
      | Nickel-cadmium            |      13 |
      | Nickel-metal hydride      |      14 |
      | Nickel-zinc                |      15 |
      | Lithium-ion                |      16 |
      | Lithium polymer            |      17 |
      | Double layer capacitor    |      18 |
      +----------------------------+----------+

NEW:
3.2.  Battery Technologies

  Static information in the batteryTable includes battery type and
  technology.  The battery type distinguishes primary (not
  rechargeable) batteries from rechargeable (secondary) batteries and
  capacitors.  The battery technology describes the actual technology
  of a battery, which typically is a chemical technology.

  Since battery technologies are subject of intensive research and
  widely used technologies are often replaced by successor technologies
  within an few years, the list of battery technologies was not chosen
  as a fixed list.  Instead, IANA has created a registry for battery
  technologies at http://www.iana.org/assignments/eman where numbers
  are assigned to battery technologies (TBD).

  The table below shows battery technologies known today that are in
  commercial use with the numbers assigned to them by IANA. 

      +----------------------------+----------+
      | battery technology        | assigned |
      |                            |  number  |
      +----------------------------+----------+
      | Unknown                    |        1 |
      | Other                      |        2 |
      | Zinc-carbon                |        3 |
      | Zinc chloride              |        4 |
      | Nickel oxyhydroxide        |        5 |
      | Lithium-copper oxide      |        6 |
      | Lithium-iron disulfide    |        7 |
      | Lithium-manganese dioxide  |        8 |
      | Zinc-air                  |        9 |
      | Silver oxide              |      10 |
      | Alkaline                  |      11 |
      | Lead acid                  |      12 |
      | Nickel-cadmium            |      13 |
      | Nickel-metal hydride      |      14 |
      | Nickel-zinc                |      15 |
      | Lithium-ion                |      16 |
      | Lithium polymer            |      17 |
      | Double layer capacitor    |      18 |
      +----------------------------+----------+

3.2.1 Guidelines for Addition to the Battery Technology List

  New
  entries can be added to the IANA registry if new technologies are
  developed or if missing technologies are identified.  Note that there
  exists a huge number of battery types that are not listed in the IANA
  registry.  Many of them are experimental or cannot be used in an
  economically useful way.  New entries should be added to the IANA
  registry only if the respective technologies are in commercial use
  and relevant to standardized battery monitoring over the Internet.



OLD (section 6.2)

  New assignments of numbers for battery technologies will be
  administered by IANA through Expert Review ([RFC5226]).  Experts must
  check for sufficient relevance of a battery technology to be added.

NEW:
  New assignments of numbers for battery technologies will be
  administered by IANA through Expert Review ([RFC5226]).  Experts must
  check for sufficient relevance of a battery technology to be added,
  according to the guidelines in section 3.2.1



2.
While searching through the archives, I found that "Comments on draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-12" from Alan Luchuk, March 12th 2014,  (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/current/msg02255.html) has not been addressed.
Note: version 12 is the version presented to the IESG
Alan has got some valid feedback.

3.

  Batteries are indexed by the entPhysicalIndex of the entPhysicalTable
  defined in the ENTITY-MIB module [RFC6933].  An implementation of the
  ENTITY-MIB module complying with the entity4CRCompliance MODULE-
  COMPLIANCE statement is required for compliant implementations of the
  BATTERY-MIB module.

  If batteries are replaced, and the replacing battery uses the same
  physical connector as the replaced battery, then the replacing
  battery SHOULD be indexed with the same value of object
  entPhysicalIndex as the replaced battery.

Can you please explain why a SHOULD and not a MUST?


4.
There are 3 EMAN MIB modules on the IESG this week. On two of them, there is a discussion on changing the "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB modules". If this is changed, this should be changed for the 3 EMAN MIB modules.
This DISCUSS is for document only.

[Ballot comment]
- Copyright date in the MIB is pretty old :-)

          Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
          authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 5 says:

"All potentially sensible or vulnerable objects of this MIB module are
  in the batteryTable.  In general, there are no serious operational
  vulnerabilities foreseen in case of an unauthorized read access to
  this table.  However, privacy issues need to be considered.  It may
  be a trade secret of the operator
  o  how many batteries are installed in a managed node (batteryIndex)
  o  how old these batteries are (batteryActualCapacity and
      batteryChargingCycleCount)
  o  when the next replacement cycle for batteries can be expected
      (batteryAlarmLowCapacity and batteryAlarmHighCycleCount)
  o  what battery type and make are used with which firmware version
      (batteryIdentifier, batteryFirmwareVersion, batteryType, and
      batteryTechnology)"

The above is a list of corporate confidentiality issues, so I would suggest s/privacy/corporate confidentiality/.

Furthermore, discussion of actual privacy issues -- affecting individuals -- is missing.
Just as the document notes the corporate confidentiality issues, it should note the potential privacy issues, e.g., by adding something along the following lines:

"For any battery-powered device whose use can be correlated to an individual or a small group of individuals, the following objects have the potential to reveal information about those individuals' activities or habits (e.g., if they are near a power outlet, if they've been using their devices heavily, etc.):

batteryChargingCycleCount
batteryLastChargingCycleTime
batteryChargingOperState
batteryActualCharge
batteryActualVoltage
batteryActualCurrent
batteryTemperature
batteryAlarmLowCharge
batteryAlarmLowVoltage
batteryAlarmLowCapacity
batteryAlarmHighCycleCount
batteryAlarmHighTemperature
batteryAlarmLowTemperature

Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988. Battery monitoring of devices used by individuals should only occur with proper authorization."

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-12.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has questions about the requested actions in this draft document.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: batteryMIB
Description: Battery Monitoring MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

QUESTIONS:
- the draft has two different "to-be-assigned" placeholders:

      ::= { mib-2 zzz }
  -- zzz to be assigned by IANA.

            Descriptor        OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
            ----------        -----------------------
            batteryMIB        { mib-2 xxx }

Are 'xxx' and 'zzz' referenced the same thing 'batteryMIB'?
If not, what should mib-2 zzz be?

2) It appears that section 4 of this draft is the mib file
of the above new MIB for BATTERY-MIB.  The authors did not
mention that in the IANA Considerations section.  Is that just
a reference for batteryMIB and does not concern IANA?

Second, a new registry is to be created for Battery Technologies and placed on the IANA Matrix at:

http://www.iana.org/protocols

The new registry is proposed to be located in:

URL: http://www.iana.org/assignments/eman

Title: Battery Technologies
Registry(-ies): Battery Technologies
Registration Procedure: Expert Review
Reference: RFC-to-be

An initial set of registrations exist for the new registry as follows:

+----------------------------+----------+---------------+
| battery technology        | assigned | reference    |
|                            |  number  |              |
+----------------------------+----------+---------------+
| Unknown                    |        1 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Other                      |        2 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Zinc-carbon                |        3 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Zinc chloride              |        4 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Nickel oxyhydroxide        |        5 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Lithium-copper oxide      |        6 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Lithium-iron disulfide    |        7 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Lithium-manganese dioxide  |        8 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Zinc-air                  |        9 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Silver oxide              |      10 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Alkaline                  |      11 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Lead acid                  |      12 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Nickel-cadmium            |      13 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Nickel-metal hydride      |      14 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Nickel-zinc                |      15 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Lithium-ion                |      16 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Lithium polymer            |      17 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| Double layer capacitor    |      18 | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+----------------------------+----------+---------------+

QUESTIONS:
1) Are values 1-18 the only values for this registry? If not,
what is the range for this new registry?  Is value 0 the first
value?  If yes, should zero be marked as "Reversed", "Unassigned",
or something else?  Please see RFC5226 for definitions of
those terms.

2) The authors proposed the URL 'eman' for the new Battery Technologies
registry.  Is that correct?

3) The following text is located in section 3.2:

Instead, IANA has created a registry for battery
  technologies at http://www.iana.org/assignments/eman where numbers
  are assigned to battery technologies (TBD).

What should that 'TBD' be?  We did not see 'TBD' requested in
the IANA Considerations section.

4) Regarding new assignments for battery technologies, it said:

"Experts must
  check for sufficient relevance of a battery technology to be added."

Can the authors clarify what the definition of "sufficient relevance"?
In another word, can an author of a new assignment quickly find
the "sufficient relevance" requirements for a battery technology
within this document?

IANA understands these to be the only actions required of IANA upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monitoring) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Energy Management WG (eman) to
consider the following document:
- 'Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monitoring'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it defines managed objects that provide information on
  the status of batteries in managed devices.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document:  draft-ietf-eman-battery-mib-12
Title:    Definition of Managed Objects for Battery Monitoring
Editors:  J. Quittek, R. Winter and T. Dietz
Intended status:  Proposed Standard

(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?

Proposed Standard.  Now that the EMAN Framework is in the RFC Editor
Queue, EMAN's three MIB drafts are ready for submission to the IESG.
Being MIBs, interoperability requires that they be Standards Track
RFCs.  Yes, their headers say Standards Track.

(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 portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) for managed objects that provide information on the status of
batteries in managed devices.

According to the framework for energy management it is an Energy
Managed Object, so MIB modules such as the Power and Energy
Monitoring MIB could in principle be implemented for batteries.  The
Battery MIB extends the more generic aspects of energy management by
adding battery-specific information.  Amongst other things, the
Battery MIB enables the monitoring of:
- the current charge of a battery,
- the age of a battery (charging cycles),
- the state of a battery (e.g. being re-charged),
- last usage of a battery,
- maximum energy provided by a battery (remaining and total capacity).

Working Group Summary

Version -01 of the draft was published in April 2011.
New versions were published about every three months from then
until version -11 in early January 2014.

Document Quality

Version -11 had its WG Last Call from 10 to 24 January 2014;
as part of that it was reviewed by the MIB-Doctors.  Several reviews
were received from the EMAN list, as well as a list of
changes and improvements from the MIB Doctors.
The authors have modified the draft in response to that feedback;
we believe that the current (-12) version has resolved all the
issues.  That discussion took place on the EMAN list through March
2014.

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.  As well as the ASN1 MIB definitions,
it has lots of supporting detail, including a brief summary of the
EMAN Framework and clear descriptions of how batteries are modelled in
this MIB.  It also has discussions of how this MIB relates to the UPS
MIB, and a realistic Security Considerations section.

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

No.  The only reason that this draft has waited since March 2014
is that it depends on the EMAN Framework - which is now in the RFC
Editor Queue.

(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.

This draft was carefully reviewed by the MIB Doctors.  Several problems
with it were pointed out; they have been fixed in the current version.

(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.

No.  The WG was aware of IPR issues from very early on, but there's
been no discussion of IPR within the WG.

(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.

No nits.

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

It was reviewed by the MIB Doctors during its WG Last Call.

(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).

IANA is asked to assign one index in mib-2 for this MIB.
[There are two more EMAN MIB drafts being submitted concurrently with
this one, it would be good if all the EMAN MIBs had consecutive
numbers].

(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.

IANA is asked to create a 'Battery Type' Registry, with
Expert Review as per RFC 5226.  This is clearly explained.
The draft authors would be a starting point for reviewers.

(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.

I don't have any SMI checking software; I assume that the MIB Doctors
have performed such checks.

-----