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@ietf.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-boun...@ietf.org [ mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>>> ext Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:49 AM >>>> To: Michael StJohns >>>> Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.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 <mstjo...@comcast.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@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
