Re: [802SEC] +++EC 5 Day Review+++802.18 Comments on FCC Smart Grid Notice
Hi David,
There will be shortly.
Regards,
Mike
Message powered by a Samsung Mobile device.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Law <David_Law@3COM.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:05
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC 5 Day Review+++802.18 Comments on FCC Smart Grid Notice
Hi Mike,
I was wondering if there was an updated draft to review based on the
comments from Geoff.
Best regards,
David
***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
wrote on 28/09/2009 00:20:46:
> Mike-
>
> For your consideration
> (I would probably vote disapprove this pass if I had a vote)
>
> Page 1 Change:
> 4. We note that many of the questions raised in this NOI are a repeat of
> questions already posed within the NIST Smart Grid Interoperabilty
> Standards Project. Answers to these
>
> 5. questions derived from the NIST...
>
> To:
> 4. We note that many of the questions raised in this NOI are a repeat of
> questions already posed within the NIST Smart Grid Interoperabilty
> Standards Project.
>
> 5. Answers to these questions derived from the NIST ...
>
>
> Regarding your response to #8 where you say:
>
> "On the other hand, applications such as automatic meter reading and
> data beyond SCADA, which are more latency-tolerant, could utilize
> communications technologies such as broadband wireless, satellite,
> unlicensed wireless mesh, and licensed wireless."
>
> seems to (inappropriately) exclude wired 802 technologies. Much of the
> grid metering will be in easy reach of the wired network infrastructure.
> This particular aspect of network usage is about connectivity, not
> bandwidth. The bandwidth requirements are trivial. Connection to the
> wired network infrastructure belonging to the customer or to service
> provide premises gateway devices should be included within the scope of
> consideration.
>
> Slightly further along in #8
> Change:
> "Power system equipment located in remote regions are not usually able
> to take advantage of public wireless networks..."
> To either:
> "Power system equipments located in remote regions are not usually able
> to take advantage of public wireless networks..."
> -OR-
> "Power system equipment located in remote regions is not usually able to
> take advantage of public wireless networks..."
>
> ...And at the end of that same sentence where it says:
> "...require the installation of private wireless or wired networks."
> Change to:
> "...require the installation of private wireless or wired networks with
> independent power capability."
>
> Add to #12
> "To these ends, Smart Grid commuications systems should be developed in
> a manner such that the higher levels of the software stack are
> independent of considerations of the implementation of Layers 1 and 2 to
> the greatest extent possible."
>
> Number 16
> "No comment"
> should be replaced with a mention of both ensuring and keeping track of
> the power systems which energize all communications elements of Smart
> Grid. For Smart Grid to be fully functional in emergency situations
> there may very well be rerouting of communications required that goes
> beyond the normal reconfiguration capability of the nominal network.
> Access to a database that details the power source capabilities of each
> communication system element may well be a critical item in determining
> priorities when scheduling the repair of system elements in a disaster
> situation.
>
> Number 17:
> I do not consider the statement to be true.
> The statement would be more accurate if it restricted itself to
> broadband facilities. The desire to implement a "Smart Grid" should not
> cause regulators or implementers to lose sight of the fact that much of
> the necessary communications capability can be met by wired networking
> at speeds that can be handled by service either ordinary telephone lines
> (via autodialer) or by (multi-drop, if necessary) dedicated telco
> circuits on the in-place infrastructure.
>
> Number 18:
> Should be answered in light my comment above.
>
> Number 19:
> See comment above. Should no be limited to broadband for a reply.
>
> Number 42:
> Change:
> "...allowing large numbers of users to efficiently use the radio
channels."
> To:
> "...allowing large numbers of users to efficiently share use of the
> radio channels."
>
> Number 54: Spellcheck
>
> That's all
>
> Geoff
>
> On 9/27/09 10:46 AM, MJLynch@mjlallc.com wrote:
> > Dear EC,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4 September the FCC issued a notice calling for responses to
> their questions regarding the implementation of Smart Grid
> technology. This is related to the ongoing FCC work on the
> nationwide broadband proposal.. The response time was somewhat
> better than the previous item that 802 responded to but the
> timeframe was too short to allow a thorough response.
> >
> >
> >
> > During last week's wireless interim 802.18, in conjunction with
> other WGs, developed a response. That document (18-09-0105-05) is
> available at:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/documents
> >
> >
> >
> > The FCC due date for the comments is 2 October.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also available as 18-09-0104-00 is the FCC notice.
> >
> >
> >
> > This document is being sent to you for the five day review process.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am proposing that the EC review period begins now and closes on
> 1 October and the 802.18 response will be filed on 2 October.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > +1.972.814.4901 Mobile
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >
> >
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.