Is there any planned ad-hoc meeting/session related to this topic in Hiroshima meeting?
Peny On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> wrote: > Thanks. You already know this, as does Russ Housley, but I'll say it out > loud for others to hear. > > At the third NIST workshop on the Smart Grid, which was the week following > the IETF meeting, several IETFers were invited by David Su of NIST to a > workshop on the role of the Internet Architecture in the Smart Grid. He > specifically asked for a document that could be used to discuss and describe > the Internet Architecture, specifically to support the "profiling" (eg, > subseting) of its architecture for the purpose. To that end, I started > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ietf-core > "Core Protocols in the Internet Protocol Suite", Fred Baker, 3-Oct-09, > <draft-baker-ietf-core-03.txt> > > The initial document essentially described the protocols appropriate to a > host; at the request and behest of several commentators, I have since added > a brief description of unicast and multicast routing, QoS, address > allocation and assignment (DHCP and ND), NTP, DNSSEC, SIP, the ISO Transport > Service Interfaces (necessary for ACSE, which is used in the Smart Grid) and > something of the business architecture of the Internet and therefore > firewalls, NATs, and VPNs. I have in the can a version that puts in > references for MPLS, and given that NIST is asking about calendaring and > SNMP will likely include a few sentences on those. > > I'm trying to walk what is at best a grey line; The things that are at the > Internet Architecture's absolute core, at least to my mind, are described in > RFCs 1122, 1123, and 1812. However, NIST is asking about the place of more > things (like calendaring and timekeeping) and other possible users of the > document are also asking for things that are more core to the business than > the architecture, like NATs and MPLS. So I am trying to describe things that > are core, and also answer useful questions about less-core things, all > without trying to provide a list of all 1574 proposed standards, 89 draft > standards, and 82 standards. > > Individuals who have noticed the draft have commented; folks who care should > also do so. I have asked the IESG for directorate reviews, but have not > gotten anything from any directorates. > > As you say, NIST is requesting commentary on > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/smartgrid_interoperability.pdf. > Those of us that work for US corporations or educational institutions would > likely be wise to be involved in corporate reviews and replies, as that is > how most review of this type comes back. The exact structure to reply in has > not yet been announced, but I would imagine that will be remedied soon. > > On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > >> >> The general internet community needs to be aware of activities in North >> America that directly relate to the use of IETF protocols in the Electric >> Utility industry. This activity is generally referred to as the SmartGrid. >> Though the issues immediately deal with technical and policy decisions in >> the US and Canada, the SmartGrid concept is gaining significant momentum >> in >> Europe and Asia as well. >> >> http://www.smartgrids.eu/ >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid#Countries >> >> >> The SmartGrid has many definitions but as a practical matter it is a >> substantial re-architecture of the data communications networks that >> utilities use to maintain the stability and reliability of their power >> grids. Many of the requirements for the SmartGrid in North America came >> out >> of the 2003 North East power outage which demonstrated a substantial lack >> of >> investment in Utility IT systems. >> >> http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20040915141105-blackout.pdf >> >> Of particular note, is the desire by utilities to extend the reach of >> their >> communications networks directly to the utility meter and beyond >> ultimately >> into the customer premise itself. This is generally referred to as the >> Advanced Meter Interface (AMI). One of the use cases driving this >> requirement is the next generation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. >> The >> utilities, correctly IMHO, want to precisely control the timing of how >> these >> vehicles are recharged so not to create a unique form of DOS attack and >> take >> out the grid when everyone goes home at night. This is a principal use >> case >> in 6lowpan ( ID below ). Increasingly energy flows are becoming >> bi-directional creating needs for more computational intelligence and >> capability at the edge. >> >> What is going on? Why should the IETF community care? >> >> The United States Government, as part of the Energy Independence and >> Security Act of 2007 gave the National Institute of Standards and >> Technology >> ( NIST ) principal responsibility "to coordinate development of a >> framework >> that includes protocols and model standards" for the SmartGrid. >> >> http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/ >> >> >> After several meetings sponsored by NIST in recent months, NIST released a >> preliminary report. Several folks from the IETF community attended those >> meetings, myself included. There multiple troubling stories about how >> those >> meetings were organized but I'll leave those tales to others. >> >> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/smartgrid_interoperability.pdf >> >> One of the requests from NIST and the SmartGrid community was a list of >> Core >> Internet protocols that NIST could refer to. Fred Baker has been working >> on >> that task. ( below ) >> >> Myself and others are deeply concerned by how this effort is developing. >> There is no current consensus on what the communications architecture of >> the >> SmartGrid is or how IP actually fits into it. >> >> The Utility Industry does not understand the current IPv4 number exhaust >> problem and the consequences of that if they want to put a IP address on >> every Utility Meter in North America. >> >> What is equally troubling is that many of the underlying protocols that >> utilities wish to deploy are not engineered for IPv6. We have an example >> of >> that in a recent ID. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-01.txt >> >> >> Obviously, there are significant CyberSecurity issues in the SmartGrid >> concept and NIST has produced a useful document outlining the requirements >> and usecases. >> >> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/nistir-7628/draft-nistir-7628.pdf >> >> How the SmartGrid interfaces with or bridges with Home Area or Enterprise >> Local Area networks is unclear, to put it mildly. >> >> I want to use this message to encourage the community to read the attached >> documents and get involved in this effort as appropriate. Additional NIST >> documents will be published shortly with a open public comment period. >> >> I strongly urge members of the IETF community to participate in this >> comment >> period and lend its expertise as necessary. >> >> It's useful and important work. >> >> ************************ >> >> >> Title : Core Protocols in the Internet Protocol Suite >> Author(s) : F. Baker >> Filename : draft-baker-ietf-core-03.txt >> Pages : 32 >> Date : 2009-10-03 >> >> This note attempts to identify the core of the Internet Protocol Suite. >> The >> target audience is NIST, in the Smart Grid discussion, as they have >> requested guidance on how to profile the Internet Protocol Suite. In >> general, that would mean selecting what they need from the picture >> presented >> here. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-ietf-core-03.txt >> >> >> >> >> Title : Design and Application Spaces for 6LoWPANs >> Author(s) : E. Kim, et al. >> Filename : draft-ietf-6lowpan-usecases-04.txt >> Pages : 30 >> Date : 2009-10-01 >> >> This document investigates potential application scenarios and use cases >> for >> low-power wireless personal area networks (LoWPANs). This document >> provides >> dimensions of design space for LoWPAN applications. >> A list of use cases and market domains that may benefit and motivate the >> work currently done in the 6LoWPAN WG is provided with the >> characterisitcis >> of each dimention. A complete list of practical use cases is not the goal >> of this document. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6lowpan-usecases-04.txt >> >> >> >> Richard Shockey >> PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 >> <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> >> skype/AIM: rshockey101 >> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf