Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

Ralph Droms <> Wed, 19 September 2012 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AAA21F84D2 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KoUYF5KZMLvd for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B636A21F843A for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so1446299qca.31 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=WVq2JRdLBaKw1PVxnO1wIQJWyrE4Xe/KCmCLg+RHnB0=; b=0vpEAQVAST4OXY23tZR74/hzvWKIJi4P2bjyKqEwsSODchQ84NPGtPFph3RjAJ5OQA L9j3Ay92VsPEmCni86ArR6DWgTMPQd5Q4BBr36eZPvmEZDsLKRlBQY+NyHs+61jAueVu P6jaYAM9CP+WI4h8vpzhuIsW4REY3AXSnP4jDlvWFPdeW5jWB4AORCbiPZYpAqzHNCJ9 2Vv98GK04Vum4D/oj2XOQEU5LaX89W2eJsX+dLfBR4WaE4X8LFWhsZ8XKi0IZkOBfmRg KSqvOkMzDBqIswVd0MhBrnfCgRdzW2ry0rzz5YHYqSn+6dkdOOX1WbnOBxGPCzKFy1hB XpHA==
Received: by with SMTP id ck5mr673125qab.42.1348096953797; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id ep8sm5774869qab.22.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ralph Droms <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:22:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Fred Baker (fred) <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir <>, Housley Russ <>
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:22:38 -0000

Fred - I agree with your assessment and your plan for future engagement with SGIP.

- Ralph

On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:08 PM 9/19/12, Fred Baker (fred) 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