attachment-0001
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier New";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>By my count, we have seven responses
to the last call, and we need nine. Do we have two more representatives who are
willing to report that they have reviewed the documents? Since IDS will not
have a meeting at the 1PM EST Thursday time slot this week, let’s try to
get two more Last Call acknowledgements so that we can have a concal to handle
last call comment resolution.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>On a related issue, they IETF
EMON (energy management) working group does have a charter <a
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/charter/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/charter/</a>.
It is interesting that the charter indicates </span><span
style='font-size:14.0pt'>that “The<br>
framework will focus on energy management for IP-based network equipment (routers,
switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the like).” Apparently, the IETF
does not appear to regard printers and MFDs as worthy of consideration…or
perhaps they realize that the usage considerations of these devices are too
complex for them to address?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Also of interest : “The
monitoring of power states includes: retrieving power states, properties of
power states, current power state, power state transitions, and power state
statistics. The managed objects will provide means for reporting detailed
properties of the actual energy rate (power) and of accumulated energy.
Further, it will provide information on electrical power quality.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>That is pretty much what the current
PWG Power Management model addresses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<pre><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>The schedule is very (and unrealistically) aggressive, with a Power and Energy Monitoring MIB to be submitted for publication as Standard Track RFC by September 2011. Indeed, there already is an Energy-aware Networks and Devices MIB Int</span><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>ernet Draft (<a
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib</a> ), which I fully expect will have major revisions if and when it is approved.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I think we need to acknowledge this in the MPSA writeup, including how an Imaging Device specific power management structure (including monitoring and control), not limited to a MIB, has distinct advantages (or not) over a Cisco Systems type power MIB. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Bill Wagner - WIMS/PMP Chair<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre></div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body>
</html>