Thank you to all the respondents. The Last Call period for the Power
Management documents is ended.
Apparently, Ira wishes to address the last call comments in an update
without any further discussion, or the potential of any additional comments,
which is a completely valid interopretation of the process. Because the
formal vote is not anticipated until January (presumably so there will be
some chance to consider MPSA comments anticipated at December end?), there
is no rush. So, unless there is a specific request for a concall, there will
be no WIMS call this week.
We need to discuss with IDS who will have the time slot on 18 November.
There will be no calls on 25 November. So our next WIMS call may be 2
December, where we would discuss the slides for the face-to-face slide for
9 December.
BTW - Since we have the nine responses to the last call, it is of no
significance in this case. But, for the future, I think we need some formal
clarification of the process document. It states
" If less than 30 percent of the PWG membership have commented,
participated, or communicated that they have no comments for a given
document during Last Call, the Last Call period is automatically extended
until that threshold is met. "
Whereas the requirements for voting does refer to "eligible members" , this
description of last call does not, suggesting at all members (27) are
considered. Further, I would think that we do not discard 'fractional
members' and therefore round up numbers when counting quorums. But that is
just my take. Perhaps it should be made clear and documented.
Bill Wagner
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:39 AM
To: William Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: wims at pwg.org; pmp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [WIMS] Power Management Last Call
Hi Bill,
As of now, we have 9 acknowledgments of the Power MIB
last call.
BTW, quorum for last call is 30% of 25 voting members = 7.
Non-voting members do not count for last call quorum.
I'll be updating the specs with changes per last call comments.
I'll try to have these updates before this Thursday, but there is
no urgency, since Formal Vote will be held in January.
We will review the final changes made from last call at the
December F2F, but we will not make *any* further changes,
unless a compelling technical issue is raised.
Possible IETF EMAN work may or may not be of interest
in future years.
The DMTF CIM and ACPI power management standards
are already deployed and are the basis of the PWG Power
Model.
Cheers,
- Ira (Editor of Power Model/Power MIB)
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
wrote:
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.
On a related issue, they IETF EMON (energy management) working group does
have a charter https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/charter/. It is
interesting that the charter indicates that "The
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?
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."
That is pretty much what the current PWG Power Management model addresses.
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 Internet Draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib ),
which I fully expect will have major revisions if and when it is approved.
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.
Bill Wagner - WIMS/PMP Chair
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
wims mailing list
wims at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/wims
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/pmp/attachments/20101108/0885adff/attachment-0001.html>