Re: [smartpowerdir] A view on Zigbee Security Energy Profile 1.x

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 7, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> I support your conclusions that SEP 1.x does not appear to meet the conventional requirements of IETF-sanctioned standards and ought not to be treated as SGIP-sanctioned either. But, properly "fenced off", might be documented, for reference purposes only, in, e.g., the catalog of "standards". Does this make any sense to you?

Yes and no. The question I would raise is essentially the "I have an RFC number; it's obviously a standard" problem. What the Texas PUC and the government of the UK are asking for might be compared to an RFC number in that context. Given one, they can specify and sell product. The Internet community has over 6000 RFCs, of which quite a number are best described as "white papers" or "documentation of what turned out to be a bad idea"; only 2441, less than half, are standards of any category, and only 1997, less than 1/3, are current. 

My personal opinion goes along with the governing board's action; the best thing that the SGIP can do is figure out a reasonable coexistence/transition model so that deployed equipment can be used without serious reinvestment, but not encourage future deployment. I'd like to believe that Zigbee will help with that.