Energy Management Framework
draft-ietf-eman-framework-19

[Ballot comment]
I'm not putting a DISCUSS on this, because I have to trust the WG to decide what it's applicability is, but I'm quite concerned that the group is not taking into account energy management systems where power is being supplied by seriously large power systems that need to be monitored. See comments below particularly regarding batteries:

1:

      The framework also covers monitoring and control of batteries
      contained in devices.
     
We had this discussion back when the requirements document came out. Characterizing batteries as contained in a device is not right. It is a view of batteries for small devices that might work, but for systems where batteries are a receiver and producer of power, I think it's a bad model. (Similar comment for the description of Components in section 3.)

2: In the definitions:

        1. Power Attributes are not intended to be judgmental
        with respect to a reference or technical value and are
        independent of any usage context.
       
"judgmental" is the wrong word here. What do you mean?

6.3.4 & 6.3.5 lack any indication of an awareness of internationalization. Are you really saying that *any* characters are allowed except for comma? If so, at least mention that alphanumeric and symbol characters from the entire Unicode repertoire are expected to be reasonable.

6.6.2:

          o Transitive Power Source relationships SHOULD NOT be
            established.  For example, if an Energy Object A has
            a Power Source Relationship "Poweredby" with the
            Energy Object B, and if the Energy Object B has a
            Power Source Relationship "Poweredby" with the Energy
            Object C, then the Energy Object A SHOULD NOT have a
            Power Source Relationship "Poweredby" with the Energy
            Object C.
           
Why is that? I can certainly imagine a generator powering a UPS, the UPS powering a device, and the generator also powering that device. Are you simply saying that the "Poweredby" relationship gets established and destroyed dynamically? So when the device is being powered by the generator, it is not being powered by the UPS, so the Poweredby relationship between the UPS and the device goes away? (I'm still a bit concerned about load sharing power sources, like two producers on a grid, but maybe that can be finessed.) The SHOULD NOT seems a bit strong.

12.1.4: This is making me very nervous. The only thing I've seen from this group on batteries is the battery mib, and it is completely inappropriate for battery banks for energy systems. The list of battery technologies it talks about are clearly only small batteries for small devices (I don't see gel batteries or absorbed glass mat on the list, though maybe AGMs are suposed to be lead acid), and measurements are only defined in units like milliamperes. That's not a general battery mib, and certainly not one that can be seriously used for batteries in a large scale energy management system. Now this section of the document says that this document is not handling power state sets for batteries. I am not filled with confidence that this group is getting good review from a wide enough audience (outside of the IETF).

[Ballot comment]

- The 2010 dates in the write-up got me. I assume just
typos.

- Are energy harvesting devices (e.g. solar panel and
charge controller combination) included here or not?  I
also had to wait until 12.1.4 to read that you're not
considering battery powered devices. Doing that at the
start would have been way better.

- Section 2: RFC 6988 has a terminology section. Why is
this one needed too if they are the same? If they are
not the same how is this adhering to the requiremnts
RFC?

- 6.3.4 - alphanumerics for human consumtion in this day
and age? That really needs to be UTF8 doesn't it? Is a
CSV list an ok thing in UTF8? I dunno myself but I'm
sure the Apps ADs will.

- 6.3.6: last paragraph there is generating yet another
mobile IP problem for the future. Personally, I think
you should change that myself.

- 6.6.2: I have no clue why you have the three "SHOULD
NOT" clauses here and they appear somewhat arbitrary.
Why are they needed? (I suspect those are neither
necessary nor useful personally.) Same point for 6.6.4.

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 . 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.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 11, this should also cover the need for audit event logging and log integrity.

For the high-level security considerations (without selection of method - 11.1 covers SNMP), the draft says:

Reading or writing these attributes without
      proper protection such as encryption or access
      authorization may have negative effects on network
      capabilities.

There should be mention of a recommendation for audit event logs, especially for set operations or where configuration changes occur.  This would be used to detect possible security issues (compromise) or even benign configuration mistakes.  A high-level mention on par with the above statement would address this concern.

This DISCUSS will be resolved (per agreement with Benoit & editors) with the addition of the following text:

Regarding the data attributes specified here, some or all may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Reading or writing these attributes without proper protection such as encryption or access authorization will have negative effects on network capabilities. Event logs for audit purposes on configuration and other changes should be generated according to current authorization, audit, and accounting principles to facilitate investigations (compromise or benign mis-configurations) or any reporting requirements.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 11, this should also cover the need for audit event logging and log integrity.

For the high-level security considerations (without selection of method - 11.1 covers SNMP), the draft says:

Reading or writing these attributes without
      proper protection such as encryption or access
      authorization may have negative effects on network
      capabilities.

There should be mention of a recommendation for audit event logs, especially for set operations or where configuration changes occur.  This would be used to detect possible security issues (compromise) or even benign configuration mistakes.  A high-level mention on par with the above statement would address this concern.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing the prior SecDir comments.

Here is a nit to correct as well:

Section 6.1 Consider changing from:
This section describes an information model that addressing
      issues specific
To:
This section describes an information model that addresses
      issues specific

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here are a
number of comments about the text. I think you would be well advised to
work on a new revision before publication.

---

I note in the data tracker that this document does not have IETF consensus. Really?

---

From the Shepherd write-up and Ballot...
    This document is an EMAN Working Group document, adopted in
    12/22/2010, and which passed WG last call in July 2010.
Impressive messing with the space-time continuum.

From the write-up
  Response to the WG adoption call was .
I guess Benoit is shy (or no-one asked him).

From the write-up
  (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/
Does that mean no discussion and conclusion?

---

Shame about the formatting and "rndom" page breaks which made it just a
bit harder to review the document.

---

Odd to find RFC 2119 "MUST" in use...

6.3.6
      An Energy Object MUST be a member of a single Energy
      Management Domain therefore one attribute is provided. 
I think s/MUST be/is/

12.1
      The group of experts MUST check the requested state for
      completeness and accuracy of the description.
You seem to be happy using lower case for other constraints on the
expert reviewer.

---

I think the notation "(Class)" is never actually explained. At least, I
had got some way through the document assuming I knew what it meant
before I realised I should check, and then I couldn't quickly find a
definition.

---

Non-electrical equipment...

Section 1
      The framework does not cover non-electrical equipment nor
      does it cover energy procurement and manufacturing.

Section 2
      non-electrical equipment (mechanical equipment)
        A general term including materials, fittings, devices,
        appliances, fixtures, apparatus, machines, etc., used as
        a part of, or in connection with, non-electrical power
        installations.

Section 5
      Non-Electrical Equipment
       
      The primary focus of this framework is the management of
      electrical equipment. Non-Electrical equipment can be
      covered by the framework by providing interfaces that
      comply with the framework. For example, using the same
      units for power and energy. Therefore, non-electrical
      equipment that do not convert-to or present-as equivalent
      to electrical equipment are not addressed.

...seems to me like you are wavering :-)

---

Seciton 6.1
      This section describes an information model that addressing

s/addressing/addresses/

---

Section 6.1
      This section proposes a similar conceptual model for

Do you intend that this remains a proposal in the RFC, or will it become
a definition?

---

Section 6.2

I don't think that the plural of "Energy Object (Class)" is "Energy
Object (Class)'s". Fortunately, the way you used it should not have a
plural.  Read...

      There are three types of Energy Object (Class):

---

Section 6.2

I struggled a bit with the distinction between device and component.
The most basic atom of eman is presumably a component. And the largest
element of eman is a device (since you do not talk about networks
being manageable in this document).

But this section appears to say that a device may be made up of
components.

So, would I be right in saying that a device cannot be made up of
devices, but that a component may be made up of components?

Consider:
Router
Line card
Laser

The term "physical piece of equipment" didn't really help me. Is a
physical piece of equipment something that can be picked up without
disintegration? Or is it something that cannot be disassembled without
recourse to a hammer? Where do router, line card, and laser fit into
that?

---

Section 6.3.1
      Every Energy Object has an optional unique printable name. 
That seems to have let the internationalisation cat out of the bag.
What do you mean by "printable"? And later in the same paragraph:
"test string"?

---

6.3.3

      Although EnMS and administrators can establish their own
      ranking, the following example is a broad recommendation
      for commercial deployments [CISCO-EW]:
       
          90 to 100 Emergency response 
          80 to 90 Executive or business-critical 
          70 to 79 General or Average 
          60 to 69 Staff or support 
          40 to 59 Public or guest 
          1  to 39 Decorative or hospitality

Is this provided for information or as a recommendation of this I-D?
If the former: why do we care?
If the latter: you may mean "RECOMMENDED" and you certainly don't need
the reference.

---

6.3.4

Hasn't the discussion of key words (here and later) departed from
information model and entered into data model? From the point of view of
an information model, all that is needed is to say that tags exist and
to say what the tags can represent.

---

Section 6.5
A number of acronyms show up unexpanded (DMTF, ACPI, PWG).  While
some have references to help explain them, PWG is unexplained.

---

Sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5
The eman power states are shown in lower case and in title case. Is
there a difference in meaning or should they be consistent?

---

Section 7

s/a MIB/MIB modules/

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-eman-framework-15.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has a question about the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

IANA understands that the three IANA actions all concern the creation of power state set registries.

QUESTION: Are these new registries to be grouped together at a single new URL for power state sets? If not, where are the new power state set registries to be located?

IANA understands that there are three new registries to be created.

First, a new registry called the IEEE1621 Power State Set registry will be created. The location of this new registry will be decided upon at a later time based on information to be provided by the authors. The maintenance of this registry will be done through Expert Review as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in this registry as follows:

IEEE1621 Power State Set

Power State Reference
----------------+----------
on IEEE1621
off IEEE1621
sleep IEEE1621

Second, a new registry called the DTMF Power State Set registry will be created. The location of this new registry will be decided upon at a later time based on information to be provided by the authors. The maintenance of this registry will be done through Expert Review as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in this registry as follows:

DTMF Power State Set

Power State Description Reference
------------+-------------------------------+---------
0 Reserved DTMF
1 Reserved DTMF
2 ON DTMF
3 SleepLight DTMF
4 SleepDeep DTMF
5 Off-Hard DTMF
6 Off-Soft DTMF
7 Hibernate DTMF
8 PowerCycle DTMF
9 Off-Hard DTMF
10 MasterBus Reset DTMF
11 Diagnostic Interrupt DTMF
12 Off-Soft Graceful DTMF
13 Off-Hard Graceful DTMF
14 MasterBus reset Graceful DTMF
15 PowerCycle Off-Soft Graceful DTMF
16 PowerCycle-Hard Graceful DTMF

Third, a new registry called the IETF EMAN Power State Set registry will be created. The location of this new registry will be decided upon at a later time based on information to be provided by the authors. The maintenance of this registry will be done through Expert Review as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in this registry as follows:

IETF EMAN Power State Set

Power State Name Reference
------------+------------------------+-------------
1 mechoff [ RFC-to-be ]
2 softoff [ RFC-to-be ]
3 hibernate [ RFC-to-be ]
4 sleep [ RFC-to-be ]
5 standby [ RFC-to-be ]
6 ready [ RFC-to-be ]
7 lowMinus [ RFC-to-be ]
8 low [ RFC-to-be ]
9 mediumMinus [ RFC-to-be ]
10 medium [ RFC-to-be ]
11 highMinus [ RFC-to-be ]
12 high [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones that need to be completed 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:  (Energy Management Framework) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Energy Management WG (eman) to
consider the following document:
- 'Energy Management Framework'
  as Informational RFC

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 2014-02-24. 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 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.




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

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


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2161/

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 2010.  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 ahs 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 . 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.

Open Issues:
1.  Nameplate should mention Manufacturer Rating.
    (ASHRAE)
2. As part of section reorganization authors will review
    each paragraph and either (trim, delete, move,
    remain) each.  Must be done with all authors.
3. Review UML with latest draft from Monitoring
    MIB/Aware.
4. Review States again and ASHRAE curtailment levels
    to be in line with their spec which  separates out state
    as simple on, pause, off and uses curtailment levels.
5. Clarify power interfaces so as not to sound like those
    used between components [BC]
6. List EMAN levels as the preferred / recommended for
    use by router wg and in general [AR]