Subject: [eman] Support for time series of measured values (eman requirements)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:53:57 +0200

Hi,

Considering recent discussions, here are some thoughts related to issues still open in the eman requirements document, in particular for the time series requirements.

1) Requirement levels / language
Would it make sense to use the requirement language ("MUST", "SHOULD", etc.) according to RFC2119 in this draft or has it been decided earlier by the group to not do so, for a specific reason?  While this is certainly more applicable to actual protocol design, there are some examples in the IETF where the use of RFC2119 language helped to foster clarity of requirements documents.
Here, I also don’t think using RFC2119 language would be contradictory to the text in section 1 (the draft’s mission), as it wouldn’t imply implementation req levels, but just points out more clearly, which features needed to be covered and specified by subsequent solution drafts.

2) Time series of measured values
Regarding the open issue of time interval types, we think that all interval types (total, delta, sliding window) are relevant. We would see total and delta as mandatory (MUST) and Sliding as optional (SHOULD) to be covered by solutions. As of now, we don’t see a need to include an overlapping series of measurements.
For the measurement methods, continuous would be priority, while sampled can be left optional.
Both reporting models (push & pull) should be covered (MUST). It should be noted here, that particularly small / battery powered (e.g. mobile) devices could benefit most from a push model, as a pull model would require them to stay on (connected to the network) and burn battery, while in the push model they’d be able to ship the data as soon as appropriate.

Best Regards
Manuel