Subject: [eman] Introductory remarks from the incoming co-chair

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 05:07:50 -0800

Hi EMAN folk:

As you already know, I'm the WG's new co-chair, freeing up Benoit as
our new Ops Area Director.  Although I've been a network person for
a rather long time, I'm a Physicist by training, so I have a strong
background in networking, and a reasonable one in energy and its
management.

I'm well aware that the authors of the EMAN Internet Drafts are
working hard to get new versions published before the IETF-83
draft deadline (12 Mar 12), I guess that's why the EMAN  mailing
list has been active over last few weeks, as the various issues come
to light, are discussed, and - in most cases - consensus is reached.

Real soon now Bruce and I will publish the draft EMAN agenda for
IETF-83, which will probably look much like the one for IETF-82!
I view meetings as a chance for the latest version of each draft to
be presented, so that we can all see what's changed (where consensus
has been reached), and to understand any remaining issues.

Looking at the current drafts, it seems to me that the WG
should be trying to complete the drafts in three groups:

1. Requirements and
    Framework (I assume here that we want to combine the
      Framework and Reference model drafts into a single document)

2. Applicability statement

      I see that the milestone for this is "submit to IESG by March
      2012."  Clearly the WG intended this to be the first EMAN
      document.

      I realise this has been worked on at the same time as
      the group 1 drafts, but the MIBs do not depend on it.

3. The three MIBs (Battery, Energy-aware and Energy-monitoring)
      These rely on the Framework to define EMAN terms.

The draft submission deadline for IETF-83 is getting close.  After
that, please read them and continue to discuss them on the list.
Let's all hope that we can reach consensus - or at least significantly
reduce the 'open issues' lists by the end of this March.

Cheers, Nevil

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

---

From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 09:53:52 -0600

Hi Nevil,

Welcome to EMAN.  Look forward to meeting you. 

A question inline. 

Thanks
Mouli

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Nevil Brownlee
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 6:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [eman] Introductory remarks from the incoming co-chair

Hi EMAN folk:

[ycm] --- snip ... 

[ycm] As of now, We have a WG item on Applicability Statement
[ycm] Did not know that this was the first document to be submitted to
IESG
[ycm] I have heard that Applicability Statement can be the last draft,
once the requirements, framework, MIB modules are finalized. 

[ycm] As a WG chair, Can you please give some guidance on this draft. 

Thanks
Mouli

Cheers, Nevil

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

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:00:27 -0700

Hi Mouli:

Sorry to be slow in responding, I've been travelling the last week or so.

My comment about the Applicability Statement draft in the Milestones
was only that.  The steps in IETF WG process are usually
  - publish first draft (ietf-eman-....-00.txt)
  - submit draft to IESG for publication as Information/Standards Track
and in between those milestones, months of WG discussions and
revisions of the WG draft.

The unusual thing - to me - was that the 'Requirements' and 'Applicability
Statement' drafts are listed as being submitted first, this March.

If the Applicability Statement is ready, that's great.  However, it also
works well to submit the WG's Applicability Statement later, in EMAN's
case, even last of the charter documents.  In that case, the Applicabilty
Statement can reflect the WG's view of how the technology is likely to
be most useful.

See you in Paris, Nevil

On 03/14/2012 01:28 PM, Bruce Nordman wrote:
> Nevil--
>    I haven't replied to the list on this pending being sure I am correct
> about the process.
>
>
> Mouli, Nevil--
>    Looking at the charter page today (don't know if changed recently, the
> Applicability statement is
> listed last for Publish Internet Draft (Mar 2012), and at the same time as
> the rest for Submit
> Internet Draft (Jul 2012).  My understanding is that Publish is a -00 WG
> item, and Submit
> is somewhere in the last call process (which I have not yet experienced so
> don't know at all well).
> So, I think we are OK on this.
>
> --Bruce
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)<
> [email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Nevil,
>>