From fred@cisco.com Wed Sep 19 11:08:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494D821F86A0 for ; 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-Level: 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0AW5M9Li1sG for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43B821F8685 for ; 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 ([173.37.93.153]) 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 [173.37.183.89]) 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 ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:08:35 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Russ Housley Thread-Topic: Smart Grid and SGIP Thread-Index: AQHNlpHIz3evEd2nA02qe59EYCHlOQ== Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:08:34 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.32.244.221] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19192.002 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 Subject: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 vari= ety of bodies but mostly IEC, for their place in the Smart Grid. They're m= ostly happy with IETF standards and plan to use them. The past four years h= ave been an educational process on my part, mostly trying to ensure that wh= erever 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 specifica= tion-in-development. Communications is not their primary interest; most spe= cifications 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 m= ean 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 comp= uterization 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 thin= k it would be ISOC as a member, and I would expect SGIP to invoice accordin= g 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, represe= nting the IETF, as a service to SGIP, but we don't derive value from the SG= IP 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 particip= ate as a guest when invited, and the IETF is willing to receive liaison not= es and do work on the behalf of the industry as we have in 6lowpan, roll, a= nd core. If anyone disagrees with my assessment, now would be the time to say so :-)= From vint@google.com Wed Sep 19 11:18:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C5121F86A4 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNFcJMcYYKMA for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C9521F86A5 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so2278144iec.31 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=eMSlY7wjod4H1VvajqOie79670cO7tTq+Ec9mVJ60KM=; b=L4cC0VSJEenXKyQSXgJ6j0WvjR7MFEsza6GSwQyjiYJn6YEVMbbHXA8/eJsdPNFUw0 +3hEdEMbCLaXW6ngJOdxRAAEYRLQFI6KxYbHRUcN4xZkGemQwig6gAxT1Mz1dPIF3z5z euf49upyRqF9gWwOfZ97Fy+RhEc/dewn1DDPOiZFU3YQuZ1yZ4e5ZdKn+On1FxRmx8lW lDk3pabJ+LOFx6qPZcQfRZOFhm/93/jljdxHBtge4mstWJ69g8xUTrQtxy4qOuNfKxG5 9QHDRntGTzunKq5fHCOEF6+E7UO6EmVAczmkeSzvRJINEC5aWN4pbUwZvtQYpnlRN2ln PzlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=eMSlY7wjod4H1VvajqOie79670cO7tTq+Ec9mVJ60KM=; b=hTVd0Ejll9arND9/qplm3ckgNn3aDrAlmLrMvdx9bAgAUzJsKa46/ebDbRmm3stoOY pUiCUwcB944GOYevi/rZ2bSdqVcVVDOK1YgbvDk4ogTUf/9EIeEmS7RTO/Fz+SMD1Z7F CCy5vX6akWXiVzGx0mddabnH+kY/Qo+rUjz//YStXPN4wzVVC/o+GJT56QCmD1P7GEmh 0KKDwiKl9eaPpkbBD57taxOgGQpdEQ5+ZbrcKGml0cgkqePtlJ3905N12+BMSyruZQtu xt2s/e7ZJzs47OAnaeDJ2B5GdNDKuWdm1qScYAaMmiEeGjdmlDfPQhmPERvAJSl82Fxo zcWg== Received: by 10.50.169.3 with SMTP id aa3mr3601820igc.54.1348078715601; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.169.3 with SMTP id aa3mr3601814igc.54.1348078715480; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.17.9 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:18:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: Vint Cerf To: "Fred Baker (fred)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f234361f72b4c04ca120882 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkS7WOoT9O4Yt5FO88iTYZTJPHqcikcWcn42oMRSvT0ZupwNIiQHr7Cob36+NeQhK2Faoi8LJ+GEpTWOAxVpL/KFyi1sCDUXL1pkHEfxT4KkbrsTX+gxlf/OyjAja/Mslwaj6fXBozqcGuy/UPDwE/JF1dnOTHgn2h73Ar0WBzgYlMuEbI9mBTwbyO+e3T2TseQFxUt Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir , Russ Housley Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:18:37 -0000 --e89a8f234361f72b4c04ca120882 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > 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 :-) > _______________________________________________ > smartobjectdir mailing list > smartobjectdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir > --e89a8f234361f72b4c04ca120882 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1



On Wed, Sep 19, 20= 12 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel= .

SGIP continues doing what it does, which is reviewing standards from a vari= ety of =A0bodies but mostly IEC, for their place in the Smart Grid. They= 9;re mostly happy with IETF standards and plan to use them. The past four y= ears have been an educational process on my part, mostly trying to ensure t= hat 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 spe= cification-in-development. Communications is not their primary interest; mo= st specifications that deal with communications at all, such as RFC 6142, s= pecify 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 wha= t we might call MIBs and object models and working out the details of busin= ess-to-business exchanges at the application layer.

SGIP has been funded by ARRA money - the ~$800B initiative to "get Ame= rica working" with "shovel-ready" projects in 2009. In ARRA,= about $28B was set aside for grid modernization, and about $4.5B of that s= pecifically for computerization of it. Four years later, that money has bee= n 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 thin= k it would be ISOC as a member, and I would expect SGIP to invoice accordin= g 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, represe= nting the IETF, as a service to SGIP, but we don't derive value from th= e SGIP or from SGIP participation. Hence, having us pay a fee for the privi= lege 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 lia= ison 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
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir

--e89a8f234361f72b4c04ca120882-- From richard@shockey.us Wed Sep 19 11:33:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F8121E8043 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:33:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.975, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jhpGA84tFQ6n for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E39DD21E809E for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24771 invoked by uid 0); 19 Sep 2012 18:33:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2012 18:33:03 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=j6c9g1m+9sqk9Mii/itXR+q3BQTPaw55r9keNpek6gE=; b=d+8wiw3HKCsr0eSseMuI9Zzgpf4BXCWOFzt+MlrkT9+ERcwKkC7x40gcvxzVTRjkjByKTmwroMZkCWFZbRLr94jxm2nGNjD+S0jJCIMMC4nkS/CVw6yGieV4Xho7IUm2; Received: from [71.191.243.130] (port=49442 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TEP53-0001e8-RL; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:33:02 -0600 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Vint Cerf'" , "'Fred Baker \(fred\)'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:32:58 -0400 Message-ID: <005901cd9695$32e05ab0$98a11010$@us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01CD9673.ABCEBAB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac2WkzIwdqYEdaCfS/y84RBJiz1zMQAAaOZA Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.191.243.130 authed with richard@shockey.us} Cc: 'IETF SmartObjectDir' , 'Russ Housley' Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:33:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01CD9673.ABCEBAB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +1 Do the regulators have to pay as well? J It's a very insular industry. From: smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] 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) wrote: 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 :-) _______________________________________________ smartobjectdir mailing list smartobjectdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01CD9673.ABCEBAB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1   

 

Do the regulators have to pay as well?  J

 

It’s a very insular industry…

 

From:= = smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] = 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) = <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

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 = :-)
_______________________________________________
smartobjectdir = mailing list
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir

 

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01CD9673.ABCEBAB0-- From bnordman@lbl.gov Wed Sep 19 11:58:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E0821F8618 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y1KTe+S6-1Xp for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ironport3.lbl.gov (ironport3.lbl.gov [128.3.41.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9CD21F84EE for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Ironport-SBRS: 5.5 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiECAJEVWlDRVdysm2dsb2JhbABCA4JLsRwBiE8IIwEBAQEBCAkLCRQngiABAQEEAQEBDwJaCxALCw0uIgUNAQUBHAYTCBqHYQucPAkDnlGLHIMdgyQDiFaNDoEUjS4WKYQm X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,450,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="86437702" Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]) by ironport3.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2012 11:58:33 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fo14so1680761vcb.31 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=nfCnbO2bSSxuKjh96dURXFB6ETD2acIOKkEwaat60VM=; b=NG9TEOcbPI2LKBn2ujN8bOxcelP9qyhMzO8WBpvPndOX/dvuyUT+tvxqjZB8wuuHR/ H0P6ZGWV6o31oJuVL663DBswu/ODyNcv6CyxCLNwv0JfY7VJuvK1P7SQGWhBncEKPyKM Iajiig4QhXnkZPGIRp5DyJkx67TKF/83W/VruQr3W9+F0k2AMtyJkJQWAOoNxrc1CwZk GGKEt9qvtaB/iHW8Jm3wYDfD3JZD/9xONDPh0rYIAAebfZr7F58VllL/4t/aQPLW0AU5 Dmdc8xZ9X1H9Nn5QhSHsjIoPM+40BlhUaukw30U3JC70wV0DBgEMUTQNj5lbkl5oE5NV GDGA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.94.44 with SMTP id cz12mr2546546veb.34.1348081113123; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.125.73 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:58:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bruce Nordman To: Vint Cerf Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dcaf0e04bc504ca1297da X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl8GvSYzHEkqvrKYG7bK3FEEUym1ujfpMRrXg9pHMr1NL4yTQ4PdVL97aCziX596phq02Ov Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir , Russ Housley , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:58:45 -0000 --047d7b6dcaf0e04bc504ca1297da Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +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 wrote: > +1 > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> 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 >> :-) >> _______________________________________________ >> smartobjectdir mailing list >> smartobjectdir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir >> > > > _______________________________________________ > smartobjectdir mailing list > smartobjectdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir > > -- *Bruce Nordman* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *nordman.lbl.gov* BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 --047d7b6dcaf0e04bc504ca1297da Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1

You could also suggest that they establish a liaison with the IET= F.
I realize that the SGIP will not be an SDO but that should not be a p= roblem.

--Bruce

On Wed, Sep 19, 20= 12 at 11:18 AM, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> wrote:
+1



On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 a= t 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel= .

SGIP continues doing what it does, which is reviewing standards from a vari= ety of =A0bodies but mostly IEC, for their place in the Smart Grid. They= 9;re mostly happy with IETF standards and plan to use them. The past four y= ears have been an educational process on my part, mostly trying to ensure t= hat 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 spe= cification-in-development. Communications is not their primary interest; mo= st specifications that deal with communications at all, such as RFC 6142, s= pecify 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 wha= t we might call MIBs and object models and working out the details of busin= ess-to-business exchanges at the application layer.

SGIP has been funded by ARRA money - the ~$800B initiative to "get Ame= rica working" with "shovel-ready" projects in 2009. In ARRA,= about $28B was set aside for grid modernization, and about $4.5B of that s= pecifically for computerization of it. Four years later, that money has bee= n 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 thin= k it would be ISOC as a member, and I would expect SGIP to invoice accordin= g 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, represe= nting the IETF, as a service to SGIP, but we don't derive value from th= e SGIP or from SGIP participation. Hence, having us pay a fee for the privi= lege 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 lia= ison 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
smartobjectdir= @ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir


_______________________________________________
smartobjectdir mailing list
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir




--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Be= rkeley National Laboratory
= nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

--047d7b6dcaf0e04bc504ca1297da-- From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Wed Sep 19 12:39:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FC821F85B8 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:39:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zwj1ujgV3q4M for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA65B21F85C7 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q8JJcpxD027415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:38:51 +0200 Received: from DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.94]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q8JJck4S017834; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:38:49 +0200 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:37:50 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD969E.40A2B2F3" Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:37:49 +0200 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640437E6E4@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP Thread-Index: Ac2WmNOajK0yqtASQ+W5tRfVlT4+RgABWJHQ References: From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Bruce Nordman" , "Vint Cerf" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2012 19:37:50.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[41214130:01CD969E] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 11463 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1348083535-00006F5F-22FED9D9/0-0/0-0 Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir , Russ Housley , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:39:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD969E.40A2B2F3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 =20 Mehmet=20 =20 From: smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] 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 =20 +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 wrote: +1 =20 =20 On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: 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 :-) _______________________________________________ smartobjectdir mailing list smartobjectdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir =20 _______________________________________________ smartobjectdir mailing list smartobjectdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir --=20 Bruce Nordman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory nordman.lbl.gov BNordman@LBL.gov 510-486-7089 m: 510-501-7943 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD969E.40A2B2F3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= +1

=  

= Mehmet=

=  

From:= = smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] = 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

On Wed, = Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> wrote:

+1

 

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) = <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

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 = :-)
_______________________________________________
smartobjectdir = mailing list
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir

 


______________________________________= _________
smartobjectdir mailing list
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir




--
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National = Laboratory
nordman.lbl.gov
BNordman@LBL.gov
510-486-7089
= m: 510-501-7943

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD969E.40A2B2F3-- From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Sep 19 13:11:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25FF21E80A0 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uI004k2IDuk0 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FCE21E8034 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155AF9A4006; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7vB1Ap6kase; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-37-162.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.37.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313869A4001; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Fred Baker (fred) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:11:31 -0000 I completely agree. On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability = Panel. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > If anyone disagrees with my assessment, now would be the time to say = so :-) From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Sep 19 16:22:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AAA21F84D2 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KoUYF5KZMLvd for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B636A21F843A for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so1446299qca.31 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=WVq2JRdLBaKw1PVxnO1wIQJWyrE4Xe/KCmCLg+RHnB0=; b=0vpEAQVAST4OXY23tZR74/hzvWKIJi4P2bjyKqEwsSODchQ84NPGtPFph3RjAJ5OQA L9j3Ay92VsPEmCni86ArR6DWgTMPQd5Q4BBr36eZPvmEZDsLKRlBQY+NyHs+61jAueVu P6jaYAM9CP+WI4h8vpzhuIsW4REY3AXSnP4jDlvWFPdeW5jWB4AORCbiPZYpAqzHNCJ9 2Vv98GK04Vum4D/oj2XOQEU5LaX89W2eJsX+dLfBR4WaE4X8LFWhsZ8XKi0IZkOBfmRg KSqvOkMzDBqIswVd0MhBrnfCgRdzW2ry0rzz5YHYqSn+6dkdOOX1WbnOBxGPCzKFy1hB XpHA== Received: by 10.224.184.133 with SMTP id ck5mr673125qab.42.1348096953797; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-rdroms-8912.cisco.com (rtp-isp-nat1.cisco.com. [64.102.254.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ep8sm5774869qab.22.2012.09.19.16.22.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:22:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Fred Baker (fred) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir , Housley Russ Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:22:38 -0000 Fred - I agree with your assessment and your plan for future engagement = with SGIP. - Ralph On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:08 PM 9/19/12, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability = Panel. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > If anyone disagrees with my assessment, now would be the time to say = so :-) > _______________________________________________ > smartobjectdir mailing list > smartobjectdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir From fred@cisco.com Wed Sep 19 17:50:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569E221E8044 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:50:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndYhebb8xEjn for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206C921F8440 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:49:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16384; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348102199; x=1349311799; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=nDLcdjeVUCTwKhoK2nP3ZsqLVGqEkJtFzw+nt8SyLPQ=; b=XoJMmjiPhJSllBZyGp2G+M2lRqvNoTuZb0pvopBIkUTN4pyQxwzAQWg6 9ZbiH+FL2+ugFDDIzj4QG3hS5SqHv8pzt40qmkp3gbRbrSwyTTxe3qljW uyL7/GF6IS3YASeFZy4y/Yk/Gv398I+ne3fXungJpY4cTCzdtefJK6cJ+ Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAOhnWlCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABFgku6IIEIgiABAQEEAQEBDwFbCxACAQgRBAEBKAcnCxQJCAIEDgUih2ELmgOgBQSLHIVhYAOVZI44gWmCZoIX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,452,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="123409270" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2012 00:49:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8K0nt9l006084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:49:55 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:49:54 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Richard Shockey Thread-Topic: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP Thread-Index: AQHNlpHIz3evEd2nA02qe59EYCHlOZeSTQuAgAAEBQCAAGlPgA== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:49:54 +0000 Message-ID: <66C4E845-EDA0-4EB1-AF88-66F1F83C0B61@cisco.com> References: <005901cd9695$32e05ab0$98a11010$@us> In-Reply-To: <005901cd9695$32e05ab0$98a11010$@us> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.32.244.221] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19192.002 x-tm-as-result: No--42.226700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_66C4E845EDA04EB1AF8866F1F83C0B61ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Russ Housley , IETF SmartObjectDir , Vint Cerf Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:50:00 -0000 --_000_66C4E845EDA04EB1AF8866F1F83C0B61ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Richard Shockey wrote: +1 Do the regulators have to pay as well? :) It=92s a very insular industry=85 Shocking, isn't it? From: smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] 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) > wrote: I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. SGIP continues doing what it does, which is reviewing standards from a vari= ety of bodies but mostly IEC, for their place in the Smart Grid. They're m= ostly happy with IETF standards and plan to use them. The past four years h= ave been an educational process on my part, mostly trying to ensure that wh= erever 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 specifica= tion-in-development. Communications is not their primary interest; most spe= cifications 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 m= ean 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 comp= uterization 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 thin= k it would be ISOC as a member, and I would expect SGIP to invoice accordin= g 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, represe= nting the IETF, as a service to SGIP, but we don't derive value from the SG= IP 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 particip= ate as a guest when invited, and the IETF is willing to receive liaison not= es and do work on the behalf of the industry as we have in 6lowpan, roll, a= nd core. If anyone disagrees with my assessment, now would be the time to say so :-) _______________________________________________ smartobjectdir mailing list smartobjectdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir ---------------------------------------------------- The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. - Marshall McLuhan --_000_66C4E845EDA04EB1AF8866F1F83C0B61ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <0960455AE131AF4E964293A7163D642E@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:

+1   
 
Do the regulators have to pay as well?  
 
It=92s a very insular industry=85

Shocking, isn't it?

From:=  smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartobjectdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = ;Vint Cerf
Sent: Wednesday, S= eptember 19, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Fred Baker (fr= ed)
Cc: IETF SmartObje= ctDir; Russ Housley
Subject: Re: [smar= tobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP
 
+1
 

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
I'm reporting on recent events in the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel.
SGIP continues doing what it does, which is reviewing standards from a vari= ety 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 ye= ars 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. Communicat= ions 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&quo= t;, 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 appli= cation layer.

SGIP has been funded by ARRA money - the ~$800B initiative to "get Ame= rica working" with "shovel-ready" projects in 2009. In ARRA,= about $28B was set aside for grid modernization, and about $4.5B of that s= pecifically 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 thin= k it would be ISOC as a member, and I would expect SGIP to invoice according to ISOC's PIR+organizatio= nal 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, represe= nting the IETF, as a service to SGIP, but we don't derive value from the SG= IP or from SGIP participation. Hence, having us pay a fee for the privilege of offering a service doesn't make s= ense. 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 i= ndustry 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
smartobjectdir@ietf.org
https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir


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

--_000_66C4E845EDA04EB1AF8866F1F83C0B61ciscocom_-- From touch@isi.edu Thu Sep 20 08:33:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B96A21F877A for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.081 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.518, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KWAwAfvT7z8 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD37021F87B2 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.94] (pool-71-105-94-82.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.94.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8KFWFnp007661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <505B36FF.4070607@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:32:15 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir , Russ Housley Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Smart Grid and SGIP X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:33:15 -0000 +1 On 9/19/2012 11:08 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > 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 :-) > _______________________________________________ > smartobjectdir mailing list > smartobjectdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir >