One simple question: Is this document an official and approved submission on
behalf of the ANSI C12.22 and ANSI C12.19 working groups?
The specific language in the IESG record (in the working group summary) is
"This document was created by technical experts of the ANSI C12.22
and ANSI C12.19 Standards, based on they first hand implementation
knowledge of existing C12.22 implementations for the Internet. Its
content is an expression on the aggregate experience of all known
implementations of ANSI C12.22 for the SmartGrid using the
internet."
"Created by Technical Experts of the ..." is NOT the same as "This document
was created by (or is a product of) the ANSI C12.22 and C12.19 working groups"
If you're not paying attention, you might assume this was an official work
product of C12.22 and C12.19.
Or is this in reality a C12.22 work product? If so, why not say so? Better
yet, why not have the ANSI liaison say so?
The issue is not the qualifications of the contributors, nor the process for
creating the document, but whether or not this is a private contribution rather
than a standards body contribution. The document is NOT clear on this and
reads like a standards body submission. Given the authors involvement with the
C12 organization, a reasonable person might assume this is an official
submission even though the Working Group Notes seem to point to an individual
or private submission. It seems reasonable to clarify which hat is being worn
in terms of submission.
Mike
At 12:16 PM 10/26/2010, Avygdor Moise wrote:
Dear Nikos,
I believe that you appropriately addressed the comment and I are in complete
agreement with your remarks.
I'd would also like to point out that Mr. St. Johns' concerns are also
addressed on the IETF data tracker for this RFC
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-c1222-transport-over-ip/), on the IESG
Write-ups tab. Specifically there is a Technical Summary, a Working Group
Summary and a Document Quality section. These sections fully disclose and
document the origin and the processes used to produce this RFC Draft and the
qualifications of the contributors.
Sincerely
Avygdor Moise
Chair: ASC C12 SC17, WG2 / ANSI C12.19; IEEE SCC31 / WG P1377
Editor: ASC C12 SC17, WG1/ ANSI C12.22; IEEE SCC31 / WG 1703
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:49 AM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22
TransportOver IP' to Informational RFC
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Hi -
I'm confused about this approval.
As I read the draft and the approval comments, this document is an
independent submission describing how to do C12.22 over IP. But the
document is without context for "who does this" typical to an
informational RFC.
Is that really typical? Check the MD5 algorithm in [0], I don't see
such boilerplates like "we at RSA security do hashing like that". I
think it is obvious that the authors of the document do that, or
recommend that. I pretty like the current format of informational
RFCs.
[0]. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1321
Is this
a) A document describing how the document authors would do this if
they were a standards organization?
b) A description of how their company does this in their products?
Is your question on what informational RFCs are?
c) A description of how another standards body (which one????) does
this?
I'd suppose if this was the case it would be mentioned in the document
in question.
d) A back door attempt to form an international standard within the
IETF without using the traditional IETF working group mechanisms?
How can you know that? When somebody specifies his way of doing
things, is to inform and have interoperability. It might actually
happen that industry follows this approach and ends-up in a de-facto
standard. I see nothing wrong with that.
regards,
Nikos
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf