Subject: [eman] Fwd: ODVA feedback on the requirements draft -> applicability statement

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:37:03 -0400

Dear Applicability Statement Authors,

Can you please make sure that you include some "Industrial Automation" 
in the scenarios and/or target devices

Regards, Benoit.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[eman] ODVA feedback on the requirements draft
Date: 	Thu, 19 May 2011 19:27:44 +0200
From: 	Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: 	eman mailing list <[email-masked]>
CC: 	Katherine Voss <[email-masked]>

Dear all,

With permission from the authors, I'm forwarding feedback on the 
"Requirements for Energy Management (draft-ietf-eman-requirements-01)." 
from the two ODVA SIG co-chairs.

Regards, Benoit.

_Overall _

A very good effort. We mutually believe that the efforts of ODVA CIP 
Energy SIG and the IETF are parallel and touch each other at important 
points. It

would be beneficial to each party to cross-pollinate.

_In Specific_

1.Introduction: The addition of a bullet point enumerating "Industrial 
Networks" as a network type that the IETF EMAN standards could be 
applied to would be appropriate.

2.Section 2:  Perhaps the IETF might consider an additional scenario for 
industrial control systems and EMS.Industrial EMS tend to be more unique 
and customized to an application than commercial building EMS, which 
tends to be pretty standardized and configurable. A bi-directional 
gateway would allow coordination so that, for instance, a network EMS 
would not reduce network data rates when an industrial control system is 
doing a lot of hi-speed I/O comms. An industrial system could 
communicate low energy stets (breaks, downtimes, system restorations) to 
the network EMS to optimize energy usage without inadvertently 
constraining otherwise independent systems. I believe the best results 
will be obtained with independent but collaborative systems to manage 
energy in the network, building and industrial control domains. Sharing 
best practices between the domains is always a good thing.

3.Section 2.2, line 3:  (nitpicky comment) I think they meant PoE rather 
than PoW in line 3 of 2.2.

4.Section 2.5, scenario 5:  I see value in a bi-directional link between 
a network EMS and a building EMS. There may be times the building mgmt 
system needs the network at high performance. There may be times when 
the network infrastructure needs the BMS at high functionality. I see 
less call for building EMS functions to be performed by a network EMS.

5.Section 3.4.3: a more current standard for power quality is EN 50160.

6.The recommendation to use the accuracy classes in IEC 61850 is of 
interest. (But) It doesn't really apply to the industrial domain.