Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:21:41 +0000

Dear all,

The requirements draft is the first one to be agreed on.
We can do this without having to deal with all details
that the framework and the MIB modules can solve.

In the current version draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05 there
is a requirement

OLD
   5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities

   The energy management standard must provide means for retrieving and
   reporting context information on powered entities, for example, tags
   associated with a powered entity that indicate the powered entity's
   role, or importance.

Seeing the ongoing discussion I suggest separating "role" and "importance"
and moving from the fuzzy term "importance" to "power-down priority".
This would look like the following:

NEW
   5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities

   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting context
   information on powered entities, for example, tags associated with a
   powered entity that indicate the powered entity's role.

   5.1.3. Power-down priority

   The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting
   power priorities of powered entities. Power-down priorities indicate
   an order in which powered entities should be switched to lower power
   states in case lower power states are desired.

I think that the proposed requirement 5.1.3 covers Rolf's requirements

for accurate naming and John's requirements for the functionality he
calls "importance".

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hey John,
>
>I am not asking for an IANA registry but a good description and
>justification of importance. For most requirements it is just naturally
>clear to have them such as having the ability to monitor power states. No
>justification needed in my opinion. Then a half sentences in the document
>requires something that is called "importance". Here I see a need for a
>description and justification because it means different things to
>different people. 
>
>BTW, I don't think that priority means the order in which devices need to
>be powered up. It certainly doesn’t mean that in the PoE context:
>
>"This object controls the priority of the port from the point
> of view of a power management algorithm.  The priority that
> is set by this variable could be used by a control mechanism
> that prevents over current situations by disconnecting first
> ports with lower power priority.  Ports that connect devices
> critical to the operation of the network - like the E911
> telephones ports - should be set to higher priority."
>
>I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to switch
>something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to decide
>between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
>will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever this
>object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
>it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
>to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
>something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with it)
>I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
>cases. Care to share more?
>
>Best,
>
>Rolf
>
>
>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Parello (jparello) [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05
>> To: Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad
>> Schoening
>> Cc: eman mailing list
>> Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> 
>> Hi Rolf,
>> 
>> I used the terms in the email - it's defined in the framework,
>> definitions and MIB.  I'm not just throwing terms out I'm trying to
>> help to show *you* the difference in the email text. So let's focus on
>> the problem not try to discredit my word selection and  transitively
>> my premise in the drafts.
>> 
>> On to the concept you're not seeing.
>> 
>> Here's an example of the different concepts. Priority is ordering
>> (precedence) like boot ordering,   while importance is context
>> (significance).
>> 
>> Example:
>> 
>> So say I have devices on my trading floor and it is completely powered
>> off. I may have to power  them up in a certain order based on priority
>> but once they are up their running importance is different.
>> 
>> (PRIORITY)
>> Network Services
>> File Services
>> Software / Application Repository servers Database Servers Clients
>> Access Lobby Phones Trading Phones
>> 
>> Once they are running the importance to the business is different and
>> could be
>> 
>> (IMPORTANCE)
>> Network Services  (90-100)
>> Trading Phones  (80-90)
>> File Services (70-80)
>> Databases Servers (60-80)
>> Client Access (30-50)
>> Lobby Phones (10-30)
>> Software / Application Repository Servers (1-20)
>> 
>> The former is precedence the latter is significance.  Since priority is
>> already used in the PoE world for this I used "importance" to
>> distinguish the concepts. Especially since the word priority us used
>> for an action or process more times than for a device or thing. So
>> priority IMO seemed more natural to the process or power versus a
>> description of the device.
>> 
>> Simply put importance is needed to know what you can power off during
>> peak demand (but not solely that's just one very major use case)
>> 
>> BTW Notice my use of a "fuzzy"  name space for the device roles and
>> importance. Not all data needs IANA registry to be useful. So "fuzzy"
>> does not equal bad. Site defined guided data is extremely useful.
>> 
>> I've used importance with nearly a dozen EnMS vendors and scores of
>> vendors  and it's been easy to explain versus PoE priority. Happy to
>> show a running system if that clears it up. Suggest any new word you
>> like for the glossary and happy to discuss and select one but let's
>> make sure the concepts are retained.
>> 
>> A bit shocked this is being debated for re-justification though as  I
>> first presented at IETF-78 and it's been in the drafts since then.
>> 
>> To the Chairs: We need more input in this WG from EnMS vendors and BMS
>> vendors because personally, dealing with over 100 vendors in a
>> community of developers who use these concepts daily, I'm finding those
>> actively participating in the group woefully not representative of
>> problem space at all. We need more diverse input because these concepts
>> are in common use and a call for re-justification at this point
>> highlights that weakness.
>> 
>> Perhaps a demo of existing EnMS' to help educate the WG?
>> 
>> Jp
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>> Rolf Winter
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AM
>> To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>> Cc: eman mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> 
>> Well let me make myself clearer then.
>> 
>> You said: "Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs,
>> I think the value of importance is clearly illustrated." I disagree
>> here because some proponents of importance state that "Priority
>> describes precedence while importance describes significance. Those are
>> two different concepts.". If that indeed is the case then you
>> conclusion seems wrong. If priority != importance then we should
>> clearly describe what importance is. I think saying importance ==
>> significance doesn't do the job. It is just a substitute of the word
>> using a thesaurus but not a definition of how this is used and why this
>> is a requirement. But please go ahead and come forward with a good
>> definition of it and a good justification of it as a requirement. We
>> can more concretely discuss about it then.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rolf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>> London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> > Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02
>> > To: Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>> > Cc: eman mailing list
>> > Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> >
>> > Rolf,
>> >
>> > I do not know what you disagree on.
>> >
>> > Initially, some folks jumped on the bandwagon it is not useful in
>> > Energy Management.
>> > And then a clear example of a similar term from the IETF PoE MIB was
>> > shown.
>> >
>> > Now the question is definition of the term.
>> >
>> > I had mentioned in my email, that if it is a question of a clearer
>> > definition of the term, that can be provided.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Mouli
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PM
>> > To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>> > Cc: eman mailing list
>> > Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> >
>> > Mouli,
>> >
>> > I disagree. There are people on the list that seem to disagree that
>> > importance and priority are the same concept. Just the word
>> importance
>> > is utterly confusing. It could relate to security, cost, power-up or
>> > power-down priority etc. Somebody mentioned PoE and there I agree it
>> > is clearly defined. Importance is not. Let us first clearly define
>> how
>> > it is used, then let’s make a requirement out of it in case the WG
>> > feels it should be. And let us not forget to make clear what it means
>> > in the context of EMAN.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Rolf
>> >
>> >
>> > NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>> > London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>> Behalf
>> > > Of Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)
>> > > Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 06:57
>> > > To: Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
>> > > Cc: eman mailing list
>> > > Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> > >
>> > > Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs, I think
>> > > the value of importance is clearly illustrated.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regarding Role, it is not intended to be an IANA registry.  This
>> > > concept is already used by deployments.  Should not be dismissed as
>> > > not useful.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If the question is – clearer description of these terms, in the
>> > > requirements draft, it is possible to provide some text and also
>> how
>> > > these concepts can be useful.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > >
>> > > Mouli
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>> Behalf
>> > > Of Ira McDonald
>> > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:15 PM
>> > > To: Brad Schoening; Ira McDonald
>> > > Cc: eman mailing list
>> > > Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > Brad - good precedent - because it makes the "importance"
>> > > machine readable (and therefore useful).
>> > >
>> > > But since EMAN (and many other IETF WGs) have consistently backed
>> > away
>> > > from any standard definition of "role" (w/ behavior semantics that
>> > are
>> > > predictable), a text string of "role" is useless (except in a
>> > > vendor- or site-specific manner - out-of-scope IMHO).
>> > >
>> > > And I suggest that the "universe of things" is too diverse to lend
>> > > itself to an IANA registry of standard "role" keywords.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > - Ira
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux
>> > > Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working
>> > > Group Co-Chair
>> > > - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> > > Chair
>> > > - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP &
>> > > Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>> > > http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
>> > > <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>
>> > > http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
>> > > <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
>> > > mailto:[email-masked]
>> > > Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094 Summer  PO
>> > Box
>> > > 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <[email-masked]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Benoit,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There is a precedence for doing this on the device in the PoE MIB,
>> > > rfc3621 which defines pethPsePortPowerPriority:
>> > >
>> > >    pethPsePortPowerPriority OBJECT-TYPE
>> > >     SYNTAX INTEGER   {
>> > >                critical(1),
>> > >                high(2),
>> > >                low(3)
>> > >      }
>> > >     MAX-ACCESS read-write
>> > >     STATUS current
>> > >     DESCRIPTION
>> > >         "This object controls the priority of the port from the
>> point
>> > >          of view of a power management algorithm.  The priority
>> that
>> > >          is set by this variable could be used by a control
>> mechanism
>> > >          that prevents over current situations by disconnecting
>> first
>> > >          ports with lower power priority.  Ports that connect
>> devices
>> > >          critical to the operation of the network - like the E911
>> > >          telephones ports - should be set to higher priority."
>> > >     ::= { pethPsePortEntry 7 }
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Brad Schoening
>> > > e: [email-masked] ⟐ m: 917-304-7190
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> 
>> > > Redefining Storage Economics
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
>> > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
>> > > To: eman mailing list <[email-masked]>
>> > > Subject: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dear all,
>> > >
>> > > There is a discussion amongst the "EMAN requirements" authors right
>> > > now about the notion of importance.
>> > > We're trying to evaluate the requirements related to the
>> "importance".
>> > >
>> > > The current draft version <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
>> > eman-
>> > > requirements-05>  only mentions:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities
>> > >
>> > >    The energy management standard must provide means for retrieving
>> > and
>> > >    reporting context information on powered entities, for example,
>> > tags
>> > >    associated with a powered entity that indicate the powered
>> > entity's
>> > >    role, or importance.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > So there are no justifications why the importance is required.
>> > > The people who want this, please provide some more
>> > text/justifications
>> > >
>> > > Some extra questions:
>> > > - Is this importance specific to EMAN or is this generic also for
>> > > non Energy Objects?
>> > > - Importance is important related to ...?
>> > >
>> > > Regards, Benoit (as a contributor for the EMAN-REQ)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > eman mailing list
>> > > [email-masked]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>> > >
>> > >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> eman mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>_______________________________________________
>eman mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:03:57 +0100

Juergen, Rolf, John

Looking at Rolf's feedback:

Would you guys be happier with a compromise such as "business 
importance", "context importance" or "Energy Management Importance"?

Expanding on Juergen's proposal:
OLD:

NEW:

    5.1.3. xxxxx

    The standard must provide means for ranking devices in the context
    of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical
    to the operation. The value is useful during peak demand when deciding
    which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an
    operator or control system a way to determine which devices should
    receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak
    hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn off
    devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which powered
    entities should be switched to lower power states.

Regarding your role proposal 5.1.2, I believe it's fine.

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)

> On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Hey John,
>>
>>>>> - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP&
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening<[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Benoit,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Benoit Claise<[email-masked]>
>>>>> To: eman mailing list<[email-masked]>
>>>>> The current draft version<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
>>>> eman-

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:53:33 +0000

Hi Benoit,

I would like to standardize a mechanism, in this case the power down
priority.  That's what standards do.  I do not see reason to limit
the application of the mechanism (power down priority) to a single
Use case (power down less business relevant devices first).

Why should the IETF do so?  Our task is to define useful mechanisms.
I do not like excluding other use cases.  Take for example a network
with two kinds of devices:
  - a few devices consuming a lot of energy and having high energy
    saving potential
  - a huge amount of devices with low power demand and very little
    Power saving potential when turned to sleep mode.

Even if the business importance of the few major power consumers
is higher than the business importance of the many small devices,
an energy manager may decide to achieve its power saving objectives
easier by powering down a just few main energy consumers instead of
powering down myriads of small devices that only marginally
contribute to energy saving.

We can't foresee constraints to be considered for powering down
Devices.  Giving the operator a "priority" allows the operator
to implement any scheme, may it be based on importance or mot.

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>      
>        Hey John,
>
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<http://sites.google.com/site/bl
>ueroofmusic> 
><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/h
>ighnorthinc<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
><http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto:[email-masked]
><mailto:[email-masked]>
>wrote:
>
>Benoit,
>
>
>
>From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
>To: eman mailing list <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>            
>
>          
>
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>        
>
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>      
>
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>    
>
>    
>  
>

---

From: Brad Schoening <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:25:40 -0600

Juergen,

Power shedding is probably a more accurate term for the use cases here for
priority/importance than just simply power down.  There are many things in
a commercial setting that can be turned down, but not necessarily off.
Things such as variable speed fans, battery chargers, etc.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:23:52 +0100

Hi Juergen,

I'm confused.

Are you concerned by the name "importance", "business importance", 
"context importance" or "Energy Management Importance"?
Or by the proposed text? You were asking to justify why we need such as 
concept, and we've been trying to come with an example.
If you want to stress that this is just one example, and that there are 
more, please do so

  The standard must provide means for ranking devices in the context
   of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical
   to the operation. AS AN EXAMPLE, The value is useful during peak demand when deciding
   which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an
   operator or control system a way to determine which devices should
   receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak
   hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn
   off devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which
   powered entities should be switched to lower power states.

Or you concerned by both?

Regards, Benoit

> On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>     Juergen, Rolf, John
>>
>> On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter"<[email-masked]>
>> From: Benoit Claise<[email-masked]>  <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> To: eman mailing list<[email-masked]>  <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:32:19 +0000

Hi Brad,

Thanks for this hint.  Being not a native user I thought about powering
down to a lower power state, not about powering off.  But this doesn't
seem to be the way the term is commonly used.  Power shedding appears to
be much better suited.

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 01.03.12 17:25, "Brad Schoening" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>off
>>>              predictable), a text string of "role" is useless (except
>>>in
>>>a
>>>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<http://sites.google.com/site/
>>>b
>>>l
>>>ueroofmusic>
>>><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site
>>>/
>>>h

---

From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:52:53 -0600

Hello, 

It would be useful to have a description of what is meant by the term in the requirement draft. 

       “Importance is a means for ranking devices in the context 
   of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical 
   to the operation. The value is useful during peak demand when deciding 
   which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an 
   operator or control system a way to determine which devices should 
   receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak 
   hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn off 
   devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which powered 
   entities should be switched to lower power states.” 

Second is the requirement 

   5.1.3.  The standard must provide means for retrieving and reporting

   importance of powered entities. 

Thanks

Mouli

From: Benoit Claise (bclaise) 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:34 PM
To: Juergen Quittek
Cc: Rolf Winter; John Parello (jparello); Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening; eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Juergen, Rolf, John

Would you guys be happier with a compromise such as "business importance", "context importance" or "Energy Management Importance"?

 

NEW: 

   5.1.3. xxxxx

 

	Dear all,

	 
	OLD

	 
	NEW

	 

	 
	Thanks,
	    Juergen

	On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

		Hey John,

		 

		Best,
		 
		Rolf

			-----Original Message-----
			From: John Parello (jparello) [mailto:[email-masked]]
			Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05
			To: Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad
			Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
			 
			Hi Rolf,

			 
			 
			Example:

			(PRIORITY)
			Network Services
			File Services

			(IMPORTANCE)

			 

			 

			Jp

			-----Original Message-----
			From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
			Rolf Winter
			Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AM
			To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

			 
			Best,
			 
			Rolf

			 

				-----Original Message-----
				From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
				Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02
				To: Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
				Cc: eman mailing list
				Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
				 
				Rolf,

				 

				Thanks
				Mouli

				-----Original Message-----
				From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[email-masked]]
				Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PM
				To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
				Cc: eman mailing list
				Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
				 
				Mouli,

			importance

			how

				Best,
				 
				Rolf

					-----Original Message-----

			Behalf

					 

			how

					 
					Thanks
					 
					Mouli

			Behalf

					Of Ira McDonald

					Hi,

				away

				are

					 
					Cheers,
					- Ira

					<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
					<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> 

				Box

					 

					On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
					wrote:
					 
					Benoit,

					 

			point

			that

			mechanism

			first

			devices

					 

					Brad Schoening

					 

					 
					Dear all,

			"importance".

				eman-

					 

				and

				tags

				entity's

					   role, or importance.

				text/justifications

					Some extra questions:

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:30:34 +0100

Hi Juergen,

Taking back your words:

On one side, you want a mechanism not limited to a single case (which I 
agree with).
On the other side, you're ready to call it "power shedding", which limit 
this to a single use case.

To leads me to think that the generic term "importance" was maybe not 
perfect, but actually better as it took into account more use cases...

Regards, Benoit.
> On 01.03.12 17:25, "Brad Schoening"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Juergen,
>>
>> On 3/1/12 7:53 AM, "Juergen Quittek"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Benoit,
>>>

---

From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 00:33:17 -0600

Power priority or Power shedding are focused on a single use case; whereas a concept of importance  is more general. 

It is another tag (post-it to borrow the term coined by Juergen S.); which can be useful other use cases. 

Thanks

Mouli

From: Benoit Claise (bclaise) 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:01 AM
To: Juergen Quittek
Cc: Brad Schoening; Rolf Winter; John Parello (jparello); Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Hi Juergen,

Taking back your words:

On one side, you want a mechanism not limited to a single case (which I agree with).
On the other side, you're ready to call it "power shedding", which limit this to a single use case.

To leads me to think that the generic term "importance" was maybe not perfect, but actually better as it took into account more use cases...

Regards, Benoit.

Hi Brad,

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 01.03.12 17:25, "Brad Schoening" <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

	Juergen,

	 
	On 3/1/12 7:53 AM, "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

		Hi Benoit,

		 

		Thanks,
		   Juergen

		On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

			   Juergen, Rolf, John

			     I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to
			switch
			something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to
			decide
			between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
			will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever
			this
			object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
			it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
			to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
			something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with
			it)
			I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
			cases. Care to share more?

			 

			   NEW:
			      5.1.3. xxxxx
			 
			  The standard must provide means for ranking devices in the context
			  of a site or deployment, indicating which devices are more critical
			  to the operation. The value is useful during peak demand when
			deciding
			  which devices could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an
			  operator or control system a way to determine which devices should
			  receive power or could be turned off for cost savings during peak
			  hours of operation. In other words, if an operator is asked to turn
			off
			  devices during a certain period, xxxx indicates an order in which
			powered
			  entities should be switched to lower power states.

			     Dear all,

			 
			OLD

			Seeing the ongoing discussion I suggest separating "role" and
			"importance"
			and moving from the fuzzy term "importance" to "power-down priority".
			This would look like the following:
			 
			NEW

			 

			 
			Thanks,
			   Juergen

			On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
			<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

			       Hey John,
			 
			I am not asking for an IANA registry but a good description and
			justification of importance. For most requirements it is just naturally
			clear to have them such as having the ability to monitor power states.
			No
			justification needed in my opinion. Then a half sentences in the
			document
			requires something that is called "importance". Here I see a need for a
			description and justification because it means different things to
			different people.
			 
			BTW, I don't think that priority means the order in which devices need
			to
			be powered up. It certainly doesn’t mean that in the PoE context:

			I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you have to switch
			something off because you cannot power all devices and you have to
			decide
			between 911 services or the phone in the janitors office, the priority
			will tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can say that, whatever
			this
			object means it has to do with energy and I agree with your example that
			it helps you to decide what to power-off first in case you need to/want
			to. If this is what importance means (I personally would still call it
			something less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine with
			it)
			I think it is something relevant. But you were referring to other use
			cases. Care to share more?
			 
			Best,
			 
			Rolf

			 
			 
			         -----Original Message-----
			From: John Parello (jparello) [mailto:[email-masked]]
			Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05
			To: Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad
			Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
			 
			Hi Rolf,

			 
			 
			Example:

			(PRIORITY)
			Network Services
			File Services

			(IMPORTANCE)

			 

			 

			Jp

			-----Original Message-----
			From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
			Rolf Winter
			Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AM
			To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

			 
			Best,
			 
			Rolf

			 

			 
			           -----Original Message-----
			From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
			Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02
			To: Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
			 
			Rolf,

			 

			Thanks
			Mouli

			-----Original Message-----
			From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[email-masked]]
			Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PM
			To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
			Cc: eman mailing list
			Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
			 
			Mouli,

			 
			         importance

			           is utterly confusing. It could relate to security, cost,
			power-up or
			power-down priority etc. Somebody mentioned PoE and there I agree it
			is clearly defined. Importance is not. Let us first clearly define

			         how

			           it is used, then let’s make a requirement out of it in case
			the WG
			feels it should be. And let us not forget to make clear what it means
			in the context of EMAN.
			 
			Best,
			 
			Rolf

			 
			 
			             -----Original Message-----

			         Behalf

			 

			 

			         how

			 
			Thanks
			 
			Mouli

			 

			         Behalf

			             Of Ira McDonald

			Hi,

			 
			           away

			             from any standard definition of "role" (w/ behavior
			semantics that

			           are

			 
			Cheers,
			- Ira

			Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux
			Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working
			Group Co-Chair
			- IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
			Chair
			- TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP &
			Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
			http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<http://sites.google.com/site/ <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			b <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			l <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			ueroofmusic> <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> 
			<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic> http://sites.google.com/site
			/
			h
			ighnorthinc<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> 
			<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:[email-masked]
			m
			Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094 Summer  PO

			           Box

			 

			On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
			<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
			wrote:
			 
			Benoit,

			 

			         point

			                      of view of a power management algorithm.  The
			priority

			         that

			                      is set by this variable could be used by a
			control

			         mechanism

			                      that prevents over current situations by
			disconnecting

			         first

			                      ports with lower power priority.  Ports that
			connect

			         devices

			                      critical to the operation of the network - like
			the E911
			        telephones ports - should be set to higher priority."
			   ::= { pethPsePortEntry 7 }

			Brad Schoening

			 

			 

			From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
			Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
			To: eman mailing list <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
			Subject: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

			Dear all,

			 

			         "importance".

			             The current draft version
			<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			           eman- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05> 
			             requirements-05> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05>   only mentions:

			 
			           and

			                reporting context information on powered entities, for
			example,

			           tags

			                associated with a powered entity that indicate the
			powered

			           entity's

			                role, or importance.

			 
			           text/justifications

			             Some extra questions:

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:07:40 +0000

Hi Benoit,

This is a difficult Diskussion for me as a non-native speaker. Initially I thought "power down priority" would be great, because it is about bringing the power down to a lower state. Unfortunatrly, the common use of "power down" is equivalent to "power off". If as you say "power shedding" limits the use case, then let's look for another term. What about "power reduction priority"?

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 01.03.2012, at 20:30, "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Juergen,

Taking back your words:

Regards, Benoit.

Hi Brad,

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 01.03.12 17:25, "Brad Schoening" <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Juergen,

On 3/1/12 7:53 AM, "Juergen Quittek" <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Benoit,

Thanks,
   Juergen

On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise" <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

   Juergen, Rolf, John

   NEW:
      5.1.3. xxxxx

     Dear all,

OLD

NEW

Thanks,
   Juergen

On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter" <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
<<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

       Hey John,

Best,

Rolf

         -----Original Message-----
From: John Parello (jparello) [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05
To: Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad
Schoening
Cc: eman mailing list

Hi Rolf,

Example:

(PRIORITY)
Network Services
File Services

(IMPORTANCE)

Jp

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Rolf Winter
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AM
To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
Cc: eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Best,

Rolf

           -----Original Message-----
From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02
To: Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
Cc: eman mailing list
Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Rolf,

Thanks
Mouli

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Winter [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PM
To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad Schoening
Cc: eman mailing list
Subject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Mouli,

         importance

         how

Best,

Rolf

             -----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]] On

         Behalf

         how

Thanks

Mouli

From: <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]] On

         Behalf

             Of Ira McDonald

Hi,

           away

           are

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux
Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working
Group Co-Chair
- IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair
- TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP &
Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/
b
l
ueroofmusic>
<<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic><http://sites.google.com/site>http://sites.google.com/site
/
h
ighnorthinc<<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
<<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc><mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]
m
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094 Summer  PO

           Box

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
<<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]>
wrote:

Benoit,

         point

         that

         mechanism

         first

         devices

Brad Schoening
e: <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> ⟐ m: 917-304-7190

From: Benoit Claise <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> <<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600
To: eman mailing list <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> <<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Dear all,

         "importance".

             The current draft version
<<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-

           eman-

           and

           tags

           entity's

                role, or importance.

           text/justifications

             Some extra questions:

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman<mailto:[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>

         _______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman<mailto:[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>

       _______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman<mailto:[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>

     _______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman<mailto:[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:31:25 +0000

Hi Mouli,

I agree in general, if you reason about any kind of network management.
However, we are designing a standard for energy management.

And in this scope "power reduction priority"
(or how we would call it descriptively)
is a rather clear mechanism that you could use
for "importance-based power reduction by assigning
lower priorities to less important entities.
However you could use it also for power reduction
policies that consider other constraints than "importance".

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 02.03.12 07:33, "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Power priority or Power shedding are focused on a single use case;
>whereas a concept of importance  is more general.
> 
>Cc: Brad Schoening; Rolf Winter; John Parello (jparello); Mouli
>Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; eman mailing list
>I would like to standardize a mechanism, in this case the power
>downpriority.  That's what standards do.  I do not see reason to limitthe
>application of the mechanism (power down priority) to a singleUse case
>(power down less business relevant devices first).On one side, you want a
>mechanism not limited to a single case (which I agree with).
>Hi Brad, Thanks for this hint.  Being not a native user I thought about
>poweringdown to a lower power state, not about powering off.  But this
>doesn'tseem to be the way the term is commonly used.  Power shedding
>appears tobe much better suited. Thanks,    Juergen  On 01.03.12 17:25,
>"Brad Schoening" <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>Juergen, Power shedding is probably a more accurate term for the use
>cases here forpriority/importance than just simply power down.  There are
>many things ina commercial setting that can be turned down, but not
>necessarily off.Things such as variable speed fans, battery chargers,
>etc.   On 3/1/12 7:53 AM, "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]> wrote: Hi Benoit, I would like to standardize
>a mechanism, in this case the power downpriority.  That's what standards
>do.  I do not see reason to limitthe application of the mechanism (power
>down priority) to a singleUse case (power down less business relevant
>devices first). Why should the IETF do so?  Our task is to define useful
>mechanisms.I do not like excluding other use cases.  Take for example a
>networkwith two kinds of devices: - a few devices consuming a lot of
>energy and having high energy   saving potential - a huge amount of
>devices with low power demand and very little   Power saving potential
>when turned to sleep mode. Even if the business importance of the few
>major power consumersis higher than the business importance of the many
>small devices,an energy manager may decide to achieve its power saving
>objectiveseasier by powering down a just few main energy consumers
>instead ofpowering down myriads of small devices that only
>marginallycontribute to energy saving. We can't foresee constraints to be
>considered for powering downDevices.  Giving the operator a "priority"
>allows the operatorto implement any scheme, may it be based on importance
>or mot. Thanks,   Juergen  On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise"
><[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:       Juergen,
>Rolf, John    Looking at Rolf's feedback:      I thought this is what you
>refer to as importance. If you have toswitchsomething off because you
>cannot power all devices and you have todecidebetween 911 services or the
>phone in the janitors office, the prioritywill tell you. So this is EMAN
>and I think we can say that, whateverthisobject means it has to do with
>energy and I agree with your example thatit helps you to decide what to
>power-off first in case you need to/wantto. If this is what importance
>means (I personally would still call itsomething less ambiguous, but if
>we describe it better I am fine withit)I think it is something relevant.
>But you were referring to other usecases. Care to share more?     Would
>you guys be happier with a compromise such as "business   importance",
>"context importance" or "Energy Management Importance"?    Expanding on
>Juergen's proposal:   OLD:      5.1.3. Power-down priority   The standard
>must provide means for retrieving and reporting  power priorities of
>powered entities. Power-down priorities indicate  an order in which
>powered entities should be switched to lower power  states in case lower
>power states are desired.     NEW:      5.1.3. xxxxx   The standard must
>provide means for ranking devices in the context  of a site or
>deployment, indicating which devices are more critical  to the operation.
>The value is useful during peak demand whendeciding  which devices could
>be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an  operator or control system
>a way to determine which devices should  receive power or could be turned
>off for cost savings during peak  hours of operation. In other words, if
>an operator is asked to turnoff  devices during a certain period, xxxx
>indicates an order in whichpowered  entities should be switched to lower
>power states.  Regarding your role proposal 5.1.2, I believe it's fine.
>Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)       Dear all, The requirements draft
>is the first one to be agreed on.We can do this without having to deal
>with all detailsthat the framework and the MIB modules can solve. In the
>current version draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05 thereis a requirement OLD
> 5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities   The energy management
>standard must provide means for retrieving and  reporting context
>powered entity that indicate the powered entity's  role, or importance.
>Seeing the ongoing discussion I suggest separating "role"
>and"importance"and moving from the fuzzy term "importance" to "power-down
>priority".This would look like the following: NEW  5.1.2.  Context
>information on powered entities   The standard must provide means for
>retrieving and reporting context  information on powered entities, for
>example, tags associated with a  powered entity that indicate the powered
>entity's role.   5.1.3. Power-down priority   The standard must provide
>means for retrieving and reporting  power priorities of powered entities.
>Power-down priorities indicate  an order in which powered entities should
>be switched to lower power  states in case lower power states are
>desired. I think that the proposed requirement 5.1.3 covers Rolf's
>requirements  for accurate naming and John's requirements for the
>functionality hecalls "importance". Thanks,   Juergen  On 29.02.12 10:02,
>"Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:          Hey John, I am not asking
>for an IANA registry but a good description andjustification of
>importance. For most requirements it is just naturallyclear to have them
>such as having the ability to monitor power states.Nojustification needed
>in my opinion. Then a half sentences in thedocumentrequires something
>that is called "importance". Here I see a need for adescription and
>justification because it means different things todifferent people. BTW,
>I don't think that priority means the order in which devices needtobe
>powered up. It certainly doesn’t mean that in the PoE context: "This
>object controls the priority of the port from the pointof view of a power
>management algorithm.  The priority thatis set by this variable could be
>used by a control mechanismthat prevents over current situations by
>disconnecting firstports with lower power priority.  Ports that connect
>devicescritical to the operation of the network - like the E911telephones
>ports - should be set to higher priority." I thought this is what you
>refer to as importance. If you have to switchsomething off because you
>cannot power all devices and you have todecidebetween 911 services or the
>phone in the janitors office, the prioritywill tell you. So this is EMAN
>and I think we can say that, whateverthisobject means it has to do with
>energy and I agree with your example thatit helps you to decide what to
>power-off first in case you need to/wantto. If this is what importance
>means (I personally would still call itsomething less ambiguous, but if
>we describe it better I am fine withit)I think it is something relevant.
>But you were referring to other usecases. Care to share more? Best, Rolf
>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,London
>W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014             -----Original
>Message-----From: John Parello (jparello)
>[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05To: Rolf
>Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; BradSchoeningCc:
>eman mailing listSubject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance
>Hi Rolf, I used the terms in the email - it's defined in the
>framework,definitions and MIB.  I'm not just throwing terms out I'm
>trying tohelp to show *you* the difference in the email text. So let's
>focus onthe problem not try to discredit my word selection and
>transitivelymy premise in the drafts. On to the concept you're not
>seeing. Here's an example of the different concepts. Priority is
>ordering(precedence) like boot ordering,   while importance is
>context(significance). Example: So say I have devices on my trading floor
>and it is completely poweredoff. I may have to power  them up in a
>certain order based on prioritybut once they are up their running
>importance is different. (PRIORITY)Network ServicesFile ServicesSoftware
>/ Application Repository servers Database Servers ClientsAccess Lobby
>Phones Trading Phones Once they are running the importance to the
>business is different andcould be (IMPORTANCE)Network Services
>(90-100)Trading Phones  (80-90)File Services (70-80)Databases Servers
>(60-80)Client Access (30-50)Lobby Phones (10-30)Software / Application
>Repository Servers (1-20) The former is precedence the latter is
>significance.  Since priority isalready used in the PoE world for this I
>used "importance" todistinguish the concepts. Especially since the word
>priority us usedfor an action or process more times than for a device or
>thing. Sopriority IMO seemed more natural to the process or power versus
>adescription of the device. Simply put importance is needed to know what
>you can power off duringpeak demand (but not solely that's just one very
>major use case) BTW Notice my use of a "fuzzy"  name space for the device
>roles andimportance. Not all data needs IANA registry to be useful. So
>"fuzzy"does not equal bad. Site defined guided data is extremely useful.
>I've used importance with nearly a dozen EnMS vendors and scores
>ofvendors  and it's been easy to explain versus PoE priority. Happy
>toshow a running system if that clears it up. Suggest any new word
>youlike for the glossary and happy to discuss and select one but
>let'smake sure the concepts are retained. A bit shocked this is being
>debated for re-justification though as  Ifirst presented at IETF-78 and
>it's been in the drafts since then. To the Chairs: We need more input in
>this WG from EnMS vendors and BMSvendors because personally, dealing with
>over 100 vendors in acommunity of developers who use these concepts
>daily, I'm finding thoseactively participating in the group woefully not
>representative ofproblem space at all. We need more diverse input because
>these conceptsare in common use and a call for re-justification at this
>pointhighlights that weakness. Perhaps a demo of existing EnMS' to help
>educate the WG? Jp  -----Original Message-----From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf OfRolf WinterSent: Tuesday,
>February 28, 2012 1:16 AMTo: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald;
>Brad SchoeningCc: eman mailing listSubject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the
>notion of importance Well let me make myself clearer then. You said:
>"Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs,I think the
>value of importance is clearly illustrated." I disagreehere because some
>proponents of importance state that "Prioritydescribes precedence while
>importance describes significance. Those aretwo different concepts.". If
>that indeed is the case then youconclusion seems wrong. If priority !=
>importance then we shouldclearly describe what importance is. I think
>saying importance ==significance doesn't do the job. It is just a
>substitute of the wordusing a thesaurus but not a definition of how this
>is used and why thisis a requirement. But please go ahead and come
>forward with a gooddefinition of it and a good justification of it as a
>requirement. Wecan more concretely discuss about it then. Best, Rolf
>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,London
>W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014               -----Original
>Message-----From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)
>[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02To: Rolf
>Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad SchoeningCc: eman mailing listSubject: RE:
>[eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance Rolf, I do not know what you
>disagree on. Initially, some folks jumped on the bandwagon it is not
>useful inEnergy Management.And then a clear example of a similar term
>from the IETF PoE MIB wasshown. Now the question is definition of the
>term. I had mentioned in my email, that if it is a question of a
>clearerdefinition of the term, that can be provided. ThanksMouli
>-----Original Message-----From: Rolf Winter
>[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:05 PMTo:
>Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; Brad SchoeningCc: eman
>mailing listSubject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance Mouli,
>I disagree. There are people on the list that seem to disagree
>thatimportance and priority are the same concept. Just the word
> importance             is utterly confusing. It could relate to
>security, cost,power-up orpower-down priority etc. Somebody mentioned PoE
>and there I agree itis clearly defined. Importance is not. Let us first
>clearly define            how             it is used, then let’s make a
>requirement out of it in casethe WGfeels it should be. And let us not
>forget to make clear what it meansin the context of EMAN. Best, Rolf  NEC
>Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,London W3
>6BL | Registered in England 2832014                 -----Original
>Message-----From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>             Behalf                Of Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)Sent:
>Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 06:57To: Ira McDonald; Brad SchoeningCc: eman
>mailing listSubject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance Given
>the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs, I thinkthe value of
>importance is clearly illustrated.   Regarding Role, it is not intended
>to be an IANA registry.  Thisconcept is already used by deployments.
>Should not be dismissed asnot useful.   If the question is – clearer
>description of these terms, in therequirements draft, it is possible to
>provide some text and also              how                these concepts
>can be useful.   Thanks Mouli   From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On              Behalf                Of
>Ira McDonaldSent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:15 PMTo: Brad Schoening;
>Ira McDonaldCc: eman mailing listSubject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion
>of importance   Hi, Brad - good precedent - because it makes the
>"importance"machine readable (and therefore useful). But since EMAN (and
>many other IETF WGs) have consistently backed              away
>    from any standard definition of "role" (w/ behaviorsemantics that
>         are               predictable), a text string of "role" is
>useless (exceptinavendor- or site-specific manner - out-of-scope IMHO).
>And I suggest that the "universe of things" is too diverse to lenditself
>to an IANA registry of standard "role" keywords. Cheers,- Ira  Ira
>McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - LinuxFoundation Open
>Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer WorkingGroup Co-Chair-
>IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WGChair-
>TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP &Printer
>MIB Blue Roof Music/High North
>Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<http://sites.google.com/site
>/ <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>b
><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>l
><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>ueroofmusic>
><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic><http://sites.google.com/site/
>blueroofmusic> 
><http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc><http://sites.google.com/site/h
>ighnorthinc> 
><http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto:[email-masked]
>inter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094 Summer  PO
>     Box               221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434     On
>Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening <[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]>wrote: Benoit,   There is a precedence for doing
>this on the device in the PoE MIB,rfc3621 which defines
>pethPsePortPowerPriority:   pethPsePortPowerPriority OBJECT-TYPE   SYNTAX
>INTEGER   {              critical(1),              high(2),
>low(3)    }   MAX-ACCESS read-write   STATUS current   DESCRIPTION
>point                         of view of a power management algorithm.
>Thepriority              that                         is set by this
>variable could be used by acontrol              mechanism
>        that prevents over current situations bydisconnecting
> first                         ports with lower power priority.  Ports
>thatconnect              devices                         critical to the
>operation of the network - likethe E911        telephones ports - should
>be set to higher priority."   ::= { pethPsePortEntry 7 }     Brad
>Schoeninge: [email-masked] ⟐ m: 917-304-7190
>Redefining Storage Economics     From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:17:24 -0600To: eman
>mailing list <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
><mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>Subject: [eman] EMAN-REQ:
>the notion of importance   Dear all, There is a discussion amongst the
>"EMAN requirements" authors rightnow about the notion of importance.We're
>trying to evaluate the requirements related to the
>"importance".                The current draft
>version<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
>requirements-05> 
><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05>  only
>mentions:  5.1.2.  Context information on powered entities   The energy
>management standard must provide means for retrieving              and
>              reporting context information on powered entities,
>forexample,              tags                  associated with a powered
>entity that indicate thepowered              entity's
>role, or importance.  So there are no justifications why the importance
>is required.The people who want this, please provide some more
>  text/justifications               Some extra questions:- Is this
>importance specific to EMAN or is this generic also fornon Energy
>Objects?- Importance is important related to ...? Regards, Benoit (as a
>contributor for the EMAN-REQ)
>_______________________________________________eman mailing
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>_______________________________________________eman mailing
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>_______________________________________________eman mailing
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>_______________________________________________eman mailing
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
> 
>
> 
>
>

---

From: "John Parello (jparello)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:01:16 -0800

One example  use case that gets clouded when you use a more specific term like "power reduction priority" is that what happens when you want to just monitor and report. A use case for reporting is

"How much energy/cost are my critical/important devices using?"

So it seems odd to use the power reduction priority to report on that. My take on this was to allow ranking of the devices then leave the use case up to the EnMS. It's worked well for the EnMS vendors.

As you say we are designing a standard for energy management and in that space power reduction is just one of many use cases for a ranking of devices. I fear you'll get a proliferation of priority values. 

In our eco-system the single and  general term is working well for the EnMS vendors. They have put built power reduction algorithms, bring up ordering, reporting and model profiling all on the general field.  I fear these vendors will lose a lot in the standard.

So still -1 for me.
Jp

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 5:31 AM
To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Benoit Claise (bclaise)
Cc: Brad Schoening; Rolf Winter; John Parello (jparello); Ira McDonald; eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance

Hi Mouli,

And in this scope "power reduction priority"
(or how we would call it descriptively)
is a rather clear mechanism that you could use for "importance-based power reduction by assigning lower priorities to less important entities.
However you could use it also for power reduction policies that consider other constraints than "importance".

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 02.03.12 07:33, "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>downpriority.  That's what standards do.  I do not see reason to 
>limitthe application of the mechanism (power down priority) to a 
>singleUse case (power down less business relevant devices first).On one 
>side, you want a mechanism not limited to a single case (which I agree with).
>cases here forpriority/importance than just simply power down.  There 
>are many things ina commercial setting that can be turned down, but not 
><mailto:[email-masked]> wrote: Hi Benoit, I would like to 
>standardize a mechanism, in this case the power downpriority.  That's 
>what standards do.  I do not see reason to limitthe application of the 
>mechanism (power down priority) to a singleUse case (power down less 
>business relevant devices first). Why should the IETF do so?  Our task 
>is to define useful mechanisms.I do not like excluding other use cases.  
>Take for example a networkwith two kinds of devices: - a few devices consuming a lot of
>marginallycontribute to energy saving. We can't foresee constraints to 
>be considered for powering downDevices.  Giving the operator a "priority"
>cannot power all devices and you have todecidebetween 911 services or 
>the phone in the janitors office, the prioritywill tell you. So this is 
>EMAN and I think we can say that, whateverthisobject means it has to do 
>with energy and I agree with your example thatit helps you to decide 
>what to power-off first in case you need to/wantto. If this is what 
>importance means (I personally would still call itsomething less 
>ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine withit)I think it is something relevant.
>The value is useful during peak demand whendeciding  which devices 
>could be turned off. A ranking of devices gives an  operator or control 
>system a way to determine which devices should  receive power or could 
>be turned off for cost savings during peak  hours of operation. In 
>other words, if an operator is asked to turnoff  devices during a 
>certain period, xxxx indicates an order in whichpowered  entities 
>should be switched to lower power states.  Regarding your role proposal 5.1.2, I believe it's fine.
>with all detailsthat the framework and the MIB modules can solve. In 
>the current version draft-ietf-eman-requirements-05 thereis a requirement OLD
>and"importance"and moving from the fuzzy term "importance" to 
>"power-down priority".This would look like the following: NEW  5.1.2.  Context
>Power-down priorities indicate  an order in which powered entities 
>should be switched to lower power  states in case lower power states 
>are desired. I think that the proposed requirement 5.1.3 covers Rolf's 
>importance. For most requirements it is just naturallyclear to have 
>them such as having the ability to monitor power states.Nojustification 
>needed in my opinion. Then a half sentences in thedocumentrequires 
>something that is called "importance". Here I see a need for 
>adescription and justification because it means different things 
>todifferent people. BTW, I don't think that priority means the order in 
>which devices needtobe powered up. It certainly doesn’t mean that in 
>the PoE context: "This object controls the priority of the port from 
>the pointof view of a power management algorithm.  The priority thatis 
>set by this variable could be used by a control mechanismthat prevents 
>over current situations by disconnecting firstports with lower power 
>priority.  Ports that connect devicescritical to the operation of the 
>network - like the E911telephones ports - should be set to higher 
>priority." I thought this is what you refer to as importance. If you 
>have to switchsomething off because you cannot power all devices and 
>you have todecidebetween 911 services or the phone in the janitors 
>office, the prioritywill tell you. So this is EMAN and I think we can 
>say that, whateverthisobject means it has to do with energy and I agree 
>with your example thatit helps you to decide what to power-off first in 
>case you need to/wantto. If this is what importance means (I personally 
>would still call itsomething less ambiguous, but if we describe it better I am fine withit)I think it is something relevant.
>But you were referring to other usecases. Care to share more? Best, 
>Rolf NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,London
>[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 20:05To: 
>Rolf Winter; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan); Ira McDonald; BradSchoeningCc:
>context(significance). Example: So say I have devices on my trading 
>floor and it is completely poweredoff. I may have to power  them up in 
>a certain order based on prioritybut once they are up their running 
>importance is different. (PRIORITY)Network ServicesFile 
>ServicesSoftware / Application Repository servers Database Servers 
>ClientsAccess Lobby Phones Trading Phones Once they are running the 
>importance to the business is different andcould be (IMPORTANCE)Network 
>Services (90-100)Trading Phones  (80-90)File Services (70-80)Databases 
>Servers (60-80)Client Access (30-50)Lobby Phones (10-30)Software / 
>Application Repository Servers (1-20) The former is precedence the 
>latter is significance.  Since priority isalready used in the PoE world 
>for this I used "importance" todistinguish the concepts. Especially 
>since the word priority us usedfor an action or process more times than 
>for a device or thing. Sopriority IMO seemed more natural to the 
>process or power versus adescription of the device. Simply put 
>importance is needed to know what you can power off duringpeak demand 
>(but not solely that's just one very major use case) BTW Notice my use 
>of a "fuzzy"  name space for the device roles andimportance. Not all 
>data needs IANA registry to be useful. So "fuzzy"does not equal bad. Site defined guided data is extremely useful.
>it's been in the drafts since then. To the Chairs: We need more input 
>in this WG from EnMS vendors and BMSvendors because personally, dealing 
>with over 100 vendors in acommunity of developers who use these 
>concepts daily, I'm finding thoseactively participating in the group 
>woefully not representative ofproblem space at all. We need more 
>diverse input because these conceptsare in common use and a call for 
>re-justification at this pointhighlights that weakness. Perhaps a demo 
>of existing EnMS' to help educate the WG? Jp  -----Original 
>Message-----From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf OfRolf WinterSent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:16 AMTo: 
>mailing listSubject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance Well let me make myself clearer then. You said:
>value of importance is clearly illustrated." I disagreehere because 
>some proponents of importance state that "Prioritydescribes precedence 
>while importance describes significance. Those aretwo different 
>concepts.". If that indeed is the case then youconclusion seems wrong. 
>If priority != importance then we shouldclearly describe what 
>importance is. I think saying importance ==significance doesn't do the 
>job. It is just a substitute of the wordusing a thesaurus but not a 
>definition of how this is used and why thisis a requirement. But please 
>go ahead and come forward with a gooddefinition of it and a good 
>justification of it as a requirement. Wecan more concretely discuss 
>about it then. Best, Rolf NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,London
>[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 10:02To: 
>Rolf Winter; Ira McDonald; Brad SchoeningCc: eman mailing listSubject: RE:
>mailing listSubject: RE: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance 
>Mouli, I disagree. There are people on the list that seem to disagree 
>security, cost,power-up orpower-down priority etc. Somebody mentioned 
>PoE and there I agree itis clearly defined. Importance is not. Let us first
>forget to make clear what it meansin the context of EMAN. Best, Rolf  
>NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,London W3
>Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 06:57To: Ira McDonald; Brad SchoeningCc: 
>eman mailing listSubject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: the notion of importance 
>Given the precedence of use of priority in other IETF MIBs, I thinkthe value of
>And I suggest that the "universe of things" is too diverse to 
>lenditself to an IANA registry of standard "role" keywords. Cheers,- 
>Ira  Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - 
>LinuxFoundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer 
>WorkingGroup Co-Chair- IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted 
>Mobility Solutions WGChair- TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF 
>Designated Expert - IPP &Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North 
>Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic<http://sites.google.com/s
>ite / <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>b
><http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/sit
>e/h ighnorthinc<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
><http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto:[email-masked]
>omW inter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094 Summer  PO
>"EMAN requirements" authors rightnow about the notion of 
>importance.We're trying to evaluate the requirements related to the

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:49:51 +0100

Hi Juergen,

Me not anglish talker also ;-)

In light of the latest new emails on the topic,
I would still prefer "importance". However, if a compromise is required, 
what about "energy object ranking"?

Regards, Benoit.
> Hi Benoit,
>
> This is a difficult Diskussion for me as a non-native speaker.

> Initially I thought "power down priority" would be great, because it 
> is about bringing the power down to a lower state. Unfortunatrly, the 
> common use of "power down" is equivalent to "power off". If as you say 
> "power shedding" limits the use case, then let's look for another 
> term. What about "power reduction priority"?
>
> Thanks,
>     Juergen
>
>
>>> On 01.03.12 17:25, "Brad Schoening"<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/12 7:53 AM, "Juergen Quittek"<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Benoit,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01.03.12 16:03, "Benoit Claise"<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     Juergen, Rolf, John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29.02.12 10:02, "Rolf Winter"<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>>>>>> From:[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>  [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Rolf Winter
>>>>>> From:[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>  [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Behalf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From:[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>  [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Behalf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>               Of Ira McDonald
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brad Schoening<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>>>>>> e:[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>  ⟐ m: 917-304-7190
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Benoit Claise<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>  <mailto:[email-masked]>
>>>>>> To: eman mailing list<[email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>>  <mailto:[email-masked]>
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             eman-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>