Shepherd writeup
rfc7326-19

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 <need Benoit's input here>. 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.




Back