Actually, the EMAN Monitoring MIB now has a table
(similar to ours) that defines the max power (but not
other characteristics) of each state - so PWG vendor
states could be listed.
But it's tail wagging dog for MFDs to force new logic
in power management apps for the whole computer
industry. That's why I think that we should not allow
the reporting of vendor extension states in EMAN.
In DMTF CIM there is NOT a way to insert these
vendor extension states (or their characteristics), so
the EMAN mapping would be of limited utility.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> I agree that we should stick with the existing DMTF power states - without
> some way to describe the vendor states, it would be impossible to have a
> generic client monitor things properly...
>> On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> ACTION - All - Read and comment on this power states issue for EMAN.
>> The latest draft of the IETF EMAN Energy Monitoring MIB (monitor-only
> subset of EMAN model) includes the following issue:
>> "OPEN ISSUE 12: Consideration of IEEE-ISTO PWG in the IANA list
> of Power State Set ? PWG Imaging Systems Power Management MIB
>> And Bruce Nordman (EMAN co-chair) raised the question of registering the
> PWG power states with IANA for EMAN last week at the PWG meeting
> - I waffled in my reply.
>> On reflection, I propose that the PWG does NOT register their own power
> states (adding significant complexity to the NMS systems that will already
> support the other three standard power state sets).
>> Instead, best practice would be for PWG Power MIB enabled devices to
> *fold* vendor extension states into their base DMTF power states (already
> in EMAN) for more coherent power monitoring and power management
> across the enterprise. This folding would have to occur anyway for a DMTF
> CIM mapping of the PWG Power Model, so we'd be consistent for "outside"
> - Ira
>> PS - I'd like to reply on the IETF EMAN mailing list within the next two
> on this issue - please send your opinions.
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> Christmas through April:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> May to Christmas:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 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>>> __________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
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...