Subject: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:08:34 +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 :-)

---

From: Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:18:35 -0400

+1

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> smartobjectdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir
>

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:32:58 -0400

+1    

Do the regulators have to pay as well?  J 

It's a very insular industry.

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir; Russ Housley
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

+1

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.

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.

---

From: Bruce Nordman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:33 -0700

+1

You could also suggest that they establish a liaison with the IETF.
I realize that the SGIP will not be an SDO but that should not be a problem.

--Bruce

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Vint Cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 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.
>>

-- 
*Bruce Nordman*
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
*nordman.lbl.gov*
[email-masked]
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:37:49 +0200

+1

Mehmet 

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Bruce Nordman
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:59 PM
To: Vint Cerf
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir; Russ Housley; Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

+1

You could also suggest that they establish a liaison with the IETF.
I realize that the SGIP will not be an SDO but that should not be a
problem.

--Bruce

+1

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir

-- 
Bruce Nordman
nordman.lbl.gov
[email-masked]
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:28 -0400

I completely agree.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:22:29 -0400

Fred - I agree with your assessment and your plan for future engagement with SGIP.

- Ralph

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:49:54 +0000

On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:

+1

Do the regulators have to pay as well?  :)

It’s a very insular industry…

Shocking, isn't it?

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir; Russ Housley
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP

+1

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel.

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
   - Marshall McLuhan

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:32:15 -0700

+1