Re: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22 TransportOver

Is this document misnamed?

I see more about how to put IP inside ANSI C12.22 management data
structs than how to do C12.22 over IP.

Something as important as this should really be in a WG and get a more
thorough review.

Also, based on previous XXX over IP work performed in the IETF,
shouldn't this be standards track?

Thanks

On 10/27/10 5:04 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:

Avygdor - can you tell me more about the implementations on which the 
document is based?

- Ralph


On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:50 AM 10/27/10, Avygdor Moise wrote:

Dear Mr. St. Johns,

Respectfully, I think that it is not the purpose of the RFC to state what it 
is not.
The term "all known" cleanly relates to the authors' knowledge of known 
implementations. Certainly there may be a few implementations that do not 
follow this RFC, but the same is true nearly for any known Standard.
Also the term "several proprietary C12.22 over IP implementations" is rather 
strong in view of the history of the C12 Standards and the manner in which 
they are implemented.

Avygdor Moise

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael StJohns" 
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
To: "Ralph Droms" <rdroms(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; "Avygdor Moise" 
<avy(_at_)fdos(_dot_)ca>
Cc: "Ralph Droms" <rdroms(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; "Jonathan 
Brodkin" <jonathan(_dot_)brodkin(_at_)fdos(_dot_)ca>; "IETF Discussion" 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "IESG IESG" <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22 
TransportOver IP' to Informational RFC

Hi Ralph -

Exactly what I was getting at.  But a slight change in the wording you 
suggested to make things clear.

Instead as the first paragraph of the abstract or as an RFC editor note I 
suggest:

"This document is not an official submission on behalf of the ANSI C12.19 
and C12.22 working groups.  It was created by participants in those groups 
building on knowledge of several proprietary C12.22 over IP 
implementations.  The content of this document is an expression of a 
consensus aggregation of those implementations."


This, unlike your formulation, doesn't beg the question of whether or not 
"existing implementations"  and "all known" means "every single one 
including ones not publicly announced"

Thanks, Mike


At 05:34 PM 10/26/2010, Ralph Droms wrote:

Combining an excellent suggestion from Donald and Avygdor's clarification 
as to the official status of this document, I suggest an RFC Editor note 
to add the following text as a new last paragraph in the Introduction:

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.  It
is not an official and approved submission on behalf of the ANSI
C12.22 and ANSI C12.19 working groups.  The content of this document
is an expression on the aggregate experience of all known
implementations of ANSI C12.22 for the SmartGrid using the Internet.

- Ralph

On Oct 26, 2010, at 5:25 PM 10/26/10, Avygdor Moise wrote:

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


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

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