Title: Energy Object Context MIB
Editors: J. Parello, B. Claise and M. Chandramouli
Intended status: Standards Track
(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
This document defines a subset of a Management Information Base (MIB)
for energy management of devices. The module addresses device
identification, context information, and the energy relationships
The Energy Object Context MIB has two independent MIB modules,
energyAwareMIB and ianaEnergyRelationMIB. The first, energyAwareMIB,
specifies MIB objects for identification of Energy Objects. The
second, ianaEnergyRelationMIB, specifies the first set of
IANA-maintained definitions of relationships between Energy Objects.
Working Group Summary
Version -01 of the draft was published in December 2010.
New versions were published about every three months from then
until version -13 in mid December 2013.
Version -13 had its WG Last Call from 13 to 30 December 2013;
as part of that it was reviewed by the MIB-Doctors. Several reviews
were received from the EMAN list, as well as considerable discussion
with the MIB Doctors over where the Energy MIBs should be positioned
in the mib-2 tree.
The authors have modified the draft in response to that feedback;
we believe that the current (-15) version has resolved all the
issues. That discussion took place on the EMAN list through January
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, the architecture of the MIBs (with UML diagrams for them),
and clear descriptions of all the concepts on which Energy Objects
and their relationships depend.
It also has a realistic Security Considerations section
and a brief overview of two known implementations of the MIBs.
(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 February 2014
is that it depends on the EMAN Framework - which is now in the RFC
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
Yes, IPR disclosure # 2145 covers this draft. The WG was aware
of that from very early on, there's been no discussion of IPR within
(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.
There were 8 warnings, I believe the RFC Editor will fix these.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
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. There is a normative reference to ANSI's LLDP MIB extension
module, which was published in 2005.
(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
Yes. This draft has a normative reference to the EMAN Energy
Monitoring MIB draft (and vice versa). These two drafts are being
(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
IANA is asked to assign two indeces in mib-2 for these MIBs.
[There are two other EMAN MIB drafts being submitted concurrently with
this one, it would be good if all the EMAN MIBs had consecutive
(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.
I don't have any SMI checking software; I assume that the MIB Doctors
have performed such checks.