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
>