Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

[Bruce Nordman <[e-mail]>]

+1

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 problem.

--Bruce

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Vint Cerf <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> smartobjectdir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir
>
>


-- 
*Bruce Nordman*
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
*nordman.lbl.gov*
[e-mail]
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943