[smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494D821F86A0 for <smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.218
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0AW5M9Li1sG for <smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43B821F8685 for <smartobjectdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2334; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348078124; x=1349287724; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DsUsMendiNQ5TlTVPYtulBmByl/40nFjgv5N+T6khbo=; b=eln9wxV/nN7BZ8L3awcrxSZe9bGTP2784NgAMxMdJ8jtHCT5VOD0zqSn LRoFf7ctFuEoa9y5d+pKA4q6wro/fFeJLHSbxavZ9Gt8chszRbOsWU8Wd ywHbE4kckAKxC4f1aRGRfmYSUBRVMQwgh/TMMEN9ROxMS+pCfwlL9d137 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAH0JWlCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFvEOBCIInEgEnPxIBPkInBA4nh16bCKAVkH1gA5VkjjiBaYJmghc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,450,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="123048101"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2012 18:08:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8JI8aDA000815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:08:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:08:35 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Thread-Topic: Smart Grid and SGIP
Thread-Index: AQHNlpHIz3evEd2nA02qe59EYCHlOQ==
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:08:34 +0000
Message-ID: <D8656EDE-1D31-4523-9657-B66AEAC23019@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--34.328800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <50CDA48E094EF24FBA29AFB9A5E98A9D@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir <smartobjectdir@ietf.org>
Subject: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP
X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <smartobjectdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smartobjectdir>, <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartobjectdir>
List-Post: <mailto:smartobjectdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir>, <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:08:45 -0000

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 :-)