Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

"Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <> Wed, 19 September 2012 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FC821F85B8 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.579
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zwj1ujgV3q4M for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA65B21F85C7 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by ( with ESMTP id q8JJcpxD027415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:38:51 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ( with ESMTP id q8JJck4S017834; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:38:49 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:37:50 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD969E.40A2B2F3"
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:37:49 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP
Thread-Index: Ac2WmNOajK0yqtASQ+W5tRfVlT4+RgABWJHQ
References: <><> <>
From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <>
To: "ext Bruce Nordman" <>, "Vint Cerf" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2012 19:37:50.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[41214130:01CD969E]
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R)
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit for further information)
X-purgate-size: 11463
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1348083535-00006F5F-22FED9D9/0-0/0-0
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir <>, Russ Housley <>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <>
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 19:39:04 -0000





[] On Behalf Of ext Bruce Nordman
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:59 PM
To: Vint Cerf
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir; Russ Housley; Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP



You could also suggest that they establish a liaison with the IETF.
I realize that the SGIP will not be an SDO but that should not be a


On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Vint Cerf <> wrote:




On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <>

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

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 mailing list

Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
m: 510-501-7943