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/blueroofmusichttp://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 *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> wims mailing list
>wims at pwg.org>https://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/wims/attachments/20101108/44b289ff/attachment-0001.html>