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

Fred Baker <fredbakersba@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2011 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbakersba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E113A68EF; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 04:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Oq+IdDb-j9Y; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 04:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1B73A68A7; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 04:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so2318185wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=Vzc4/nRRL3SjGqgeUiHIYeHIcB3hJDQ5o6NeSOi+guU=; b=NjfUCmJI8Wyyq+AFgQ2i3EsThJjzPHXnGMfY+0JgI0ay/wgRYWgokimgIwaJQ616Cx 75xkjjukbqDmynOfIO7uLX/Pv890qvRzvb9FuQYanL5l1SvjrHKKnScOGmjj5sl7idsU uU1hD8IfE8TLD2zg8qFMKl7PdwUp8ny1m//eY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=OmMg4B3rV7AXhWlUm68uKSC6hk0K/H+rWMrAc5cOaUXi/gZIYs2L8iFGBpz8KH9S4y HdYIZaTyGKIIbPCQyUpQWbJb5siekZkdbgEctPvY0sldn+3P+PVr8iRzFbo6hKKuTLNg hK+LzNLGyFoGIQBme99N9uwE7xJlZe+e/gbOo=
Received: by 10.216.143.96 with SMTP id k74mr707266wej.100.1302174564361; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d6sm763195wer.2.2011.04.07.04.09.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Fred Baker <fredbakersba@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimk4o+dyfzEKTZ1t2eZ7+Z2B_Y2Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:09:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CFCF40B5-5FE0-46BA-B28A-DF29341595E9@gmail.com>
References: <D808FCD7-BA58-491B-9954-B59557919492@gmail.com> <BANLkTimk4o+dyfzEKTZ1t2eZ7+Z2B_Y2Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:52:01 -0700
Cc: chair@ietf.org, SGIPGB-MEMBERS@smartgridlistserv.org, chair@iab.org, IETF SmartPower Directorate <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] A view on Zigbee Security Energy Profile 1.x
X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <smartpowerdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartpowerdir>
List-Post: <mailto:smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:07:41 -0000

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.