|
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 -----
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@xxxxxxxx [
mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ext Nikos
Mavrogiannopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:49 AM
To:
Michael StJohns
Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|