Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

+1    

Do the regulators have to pay as well?  J 

It's a very insular industry.

From: smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir; Russ Housley
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

+1

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel.

SGIP continues doing what it does, which is reviewing standards from a
variety of  bodies but mostly IEC, for their place in the Smart Grid.
They're mostly happy with IETF standards and plan to use them. The past four
years have been an educational process on my part, mostly trying to ensure
that wherever they can use IPv4, they can also use IPv6. I have written one
RFC at their request, and inserted an IPv6-related comment into one IEC
specification-in-development. Communications is not their primary interest;
most specifications that deal with communications at all, such as RFC 6142,
specify it down to what is referred to as the "ISO Transport API", by which
they mean RFC 2126. For the most part, it is normalization of what we might
call MIBs and object models and working out the details of
business-to-business exchanges at the application layer.

SGIP has been funded by ARRA money - the ~$800B initiative to "get America
working" with "shovel-ready" projects in 2009. In ARRA, about $28B was set
aside for grid modernization, and about $4.5B of that specifically for
computerization of it. Four years later, that money has been allocated or
spent, and SGIP has to find other funding.

Hence, SGIP is becoming a membership organization. Anyone who wants a place
at the table has to pay a membership fee. There is a schedule of fees for
for-profit and not-for-profit institutions; if we are to be members, I think
it would be ISOC as a member, and I would expect SGIP to invoice according
to ISOC's PIR+organizational member donations revenue.

What I have told George Arnold of NIST and Paul Molitor of NEMA is that the
equation has the flow of value in the wrong direction. I am there,
representing the IETF, as a service to SGIP, but we don't derive value from
the SGIP or from SGIP participation. Hence, having us pay a fee for the
privilege of offering a service doesn't make sense. Rather, I am willing to
participate as a guest when invited, and the IETF is willing to receive
liaison notes and do work on the behalf of the industry as we have in
6lowpan, roll, and core.

If anyone disagrees with my assessment, now would be the time to say so :-)
_______________________________________________
smartobjectdir mailing list
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir