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" <[email protected]> >> To: "Ralph Droms" <[email protected]>; "Avygdor Moise" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Ralph Droms" <[email protected]>; "Jonathan Brodkin" >> <[email protected]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email protected]>; "IESG IESG" >> <[email protected]> >> 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: [email protected] ; 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: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>>>> ext Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:49 AM >>>>>>> To: Michael StJohns >>>>>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>>> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
