Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

Russ Housley <> Wed, 19 September 2012 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25FF21E80A0 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.485
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uI004k2IDuk0 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FCE21E8034 for <>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155AF9A4006; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7vB1Ap6kase; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313869A4001; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Fred Baker (fred) <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir <>
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 20:11:31 -0000

I completely agree.

On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:08 PM, 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 :-)