Subject: Re: [eman] EMAN-REQ: 5.7.2. Time series interval types

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:31:47 +0000

Hi Benoit,

Here comes a very late reply.  It is still relevant, since the point you
are raising is unchanged in the current version of the requirements.

On 09.10.12 18:45, "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>  
>  
>    Hi,
>    
>    I looked at
>    
>http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-eman-requirements-09.txt,
>    and I have a question
>    What does the following new requirement mean and imply?
>    5.7.2.  Time series interval types   The standard must provide means
>for supporting alternative interval
>   types.  Requirement 5.5.2 applies to every reported time value.
>    
>    From
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-03
>            There are three eoEnergyParametersIntervalMode types used for
>        energy measurement collection: period, sliding, and total. The
>        choices of the the three different modes of collection are based
>        on IEC standard 61850-7-4.
>    While we can have a new entry in eoEnergyParametersIntervalMode...
>      eoEnergyParametersIntervalMode OBJECT-TYPE
>          SYNTAX          INTEGER  {
>                              period(1),
>                              sliding(2),
>                              total(3)
>                          }
>          MAX-ACCESS      read-create
>    ... I'm slightly concerned that the new interval types might involve
>    different indices, so basically new MIB tables.

I think the requirements cover well what is needed. 61850-7-4 introduced
the new sliding window scheme one year ago and as the requirements are
written we can fully support this in the MIB design. And concerning this
requirement, the current MIB design is in line with it.  However, I don't
see a point in reverse engineering the requirements from variables in the
current version of the MIB module.

The current module is a good exercise to show how it can look like in the
end. We are about to finishing the requirements and the framework
document. After these are final, we can discuss MIB details.

I am not concerned about us adding more indices to the current MIB.  We
don't have to do this.  I would rather look at ways to reduces its current
complexity where possible.

Best regards,
    Juergen

>    Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
>  
>
>_______________________________________________
>eman mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman