Re: The IETF and the SmartGrid

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 <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)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(_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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf