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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf