ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22 TransportOver IP' to Informational RFC

2010-10-27 10:47:34
Mr. St. Johns,

You ask: "Is this document an official and approved submission on behalf of the 
ANSI C12.22 and ANSI C12.19 working groups?"
Answer: No it is not.

The ANSI C12.22 and ANSI C12.19 standards do not define the Transport Layer 
interfaces to the network. They only define the Application Layer Services and 
content.
This RFC addressed the gap as it applies to transporting C12.22 APDUs over the 
Internet.  However technical experts that were involved in the making, 
deploying, testing and documenting the referred standards contributed to the 
making of this RFC.

ANSI, NEMA, NIST, SGIP, MC, IEEE, IETF, AEIC and EEI are fully aware of this 
effort and this RFC. The work was carried in plain view.

Avygdor Moise 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael StJohns 
  To: Avygdor Moise 
  Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; IESG IESG ; Jonathan Brodkin 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:58 PM
  Subject: RE: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22 
TransportOver IP' to Informational RFC


  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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>