Re: [smartpowerdir] Heads Up: Need info on Release 1 standards / expected standards coming out of PAPs

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 27 June 2010 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 351E13A67EB for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MUwhLtgo5xR6 for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BEF3A67B2 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAM/PJkyrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACfLnGkOJkWhSQEg2Y
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,491,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="228252852"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2010 11:17:34 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5RBHQOf001570; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:17:28 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:17:34 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:17:34 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimUtzYnqjRB404z8f9Hpbtk4ObhHhLx1Wy8nybj@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:17:20 -0700
Message-Id: <3B9BC844-EF5D-4EA9-AAD7-6DE1A10FA925@cisco.com>
References: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49307A5E0D861@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <A3302C1A-7C75-4497-9D66-F91128820DC4@cisco.com> <AANLkTimUtzYnqjRB404z8f9Hpbtk4ObhHhLx1Wy8nybj@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Su, David H." <david.su@nist.gov>, IETF SmartPower Directorate <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] Heads Up: Need info on Release 1 standards / expected standards coming out of PAPs
X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <smartpowerdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:17:28 -0000

Multicast is defined in both domains; however, as a transport, one could imagine

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5740.txt
5740 NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport Protocol. B.
     Adamson, C. Bormann, M. Handley, J. Macker. November 2009. (Format:
     TXT=268831 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC3940) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

Does that address your concerns?

What flies next is "what routing protocol..." I would imagine PIM, OSPF, IS-IS, RIPv2, AODV, or OLSR. The IETF is working on 6LowPAN and RPL but is done with neither. Your opinions?

On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> should some form of broadcast or multicast be included (thinking about
> wide propagation of pricing or demand status information)?
> 
> I know we haven't done much with either of these protocols but in the
> context of either the SCADA environment or possibly the HAN, one might
> imagine some convenience in not having to maintain a pt-pt connection
> between the EMI and every device in the house?
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Folks:
>> 
>> David is asking for a set of RFCs to include in the next iteration of NIST standards for the Smart Grid. Does anyone have a problem with or proposed changes to the following list?
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0768.txt
>> 0768 User Datagram Protocol. J. Postel. August 1980. (Format: TXT=5896
>>     bytes) (Also STD0006) (Status: STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0791.txt
>> 0791 Internet Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981. (Format: TXT=97779
>>     bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0760) (Updated by RFC1349) (Also STD0005)
>>     (Status: STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0792.txt
>> 0792 Internet Control Message Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981.
>>     (Format: TXT=30404 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0777) (Updated by RFC0950,
>>     RFC4884) (Also STD0005) (Status: STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0793.txt
>> 0793 Transmission Control Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981.
>>     (Format: TXT=172710 bytes) (Updated by RFC1122, RFC3168) (Also
>>     STD0007) (Status: STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt
>> 2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. S. Deering, R.
>>     Hinden. December 1998. (Format: TXT=85490 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1883)
>>     (Updated by RFC5095, RFC5722, RFC5871) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4279.txt
>> 4279 Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS).
>>     P. Eronen, Ed., H. Tschofenig, Ed.. December 2005. (Format: TXT=32160
>>     bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4301.txt
>> 4301 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol. S. Kent, K. Seo.
>>     December 2005. (Format: TXT=262123 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2401)
>>     (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4347.txt
>> 4347 Datagram Transport Layer Security. E. Rescorla, N. Modadugu.
>>     April 2006. (Format: TXT=56014 bytes) (Updated by RFC5746) (Status:
>>     PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4443.txt
>> 4443 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
>>     Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. A. Conta, S. Deering, M.
>>     Gupta, Ed.. March 2006. (Format: TXT=48969 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2463)
>>     (Updates RFC2780) (Updated by RFC4884) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4785.txt
>> 4785 Pre-Shared Key (PSK) Ciphersuites with NULL Encryption for
>>     Transport Layer Security (TLS). U. Blumenthal, P. Goel. January 2007.
>>     (Format: TXT=9550 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt
>> 5246 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2. T.
>>     Dierks, E. Rescorla. August 2008. (Format: TXT=222395 bytes)
>>     (Obsoletes RFC3268, RFC4346, RFC4366) (Updates RFC4492) (Updated by
>>     RFC5746, RFC5878) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5281.txt
>> 5281 Extensible Authentication Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer
>>     Security Authenticated Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0). P. Funk, S.
>>     Blake-Wilson. August 2008. (Format: TXT=117059 bytes) (Status:
>>     INFORMATIONAL)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5430.txt
>> 5430 Suite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS). M. Salter, E.
>>     Rescorla, R. Housley. March 2009. (Format: TXT=27586 bytes) (Status:
>>     INFORMATIONAL)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5539.txt
>> 5539 NETCONF over Transport Layer Security (TLS). M. Badra. May 2009.
>>     (Format: TXT=16073 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5763.txt
>> 5763 Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
>>     (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer Security
>>     (DTLS). J. Fischl, H. Tschofenig, E. Rescorla. May 2010. (Format:
>>     TXT=81546 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5878.txt
>> 5878 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions. M.
>>     Brown, R. Housley. May 2010. (Format: TXT=44594 bytes) (Updates
>>     RFC5246) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>> 
>> 

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF