Doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0 Submission November 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 Smart Grid...

November 2010

Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Slide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Smart Grid Discussions – November 2010

Date: 2010-November-08

Abstract: NIST PAP#2 Report r6 recommended changesOther Smart Grid activities

Name Company Address Phone emailBruce Kraemer Marvell 5488 Marvell Lane,

Santa Clara, CA, 95054

+1-321-751-3988 [email protected]

Jorjeta Jetcheva Itron

November 2010


Slide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Smart Grid MeetingsMonday Agenda Item 4.1.12

Day Start Time End Time Meeting RoomTuesday 13:30 15:30 Smart Grid Cumberland CTuesday 19:30 21:30 Smart Grid Cumberland B

Thursday 08:00 10:00 Smart Grid Cumberland B

November 2010


Slide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Agenda Topics for the Week

Action Item

• Finalize change suggestions for the NIST PAP#2 Report

• Information Items

• SGIP update

• OpenSG update

• P2030 update

• ITU Focus Group

• March Tutorial topics/speakers

November 2010


Slide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

NIST Timeline

Release of draft 0.6

Release of Version 1

Draft 0.5July 28, 2010

Call for Input to Section 6August 4, 2010

End of draft 0.5 review periodSeptember 15, 2010

December 3, 2010

November 4, 2010

SGIP face-to-face, ChicagoPAP 2 meeting

OpenSG meeting, MiamiTentative PAP 2 meeting

SGIP face-to-face, St LouisTentative PAP 2 meeting

September 16, 2010

End of draft 0.6 review period

September 30, 2010

October 29, 2010

November 2010


Slide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

PAP#2 Report was updated Oct 1

• http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_Priority_Action_Plan_2_r06.pdf

November 2010


Slide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

NIST PAP#2 Report v6 – Section 44.1 Technology Descriptor HeadingsTo be able to describe wireless technology a set of characteristics were identified andorganized into logical groups. The group titles are listed below.

• 1. Link Availability• 2. Data/Media Type Supported• 3. Coverage Area• 4. Mobility• 5. Data Rates• 6. RF Utilization• 7. Data Frames & Packets• 8. Link Quality Optimization• 9. Radio Performance Measurement & Management• 10. Power Management• 11. Connection Topologies• 12. Connection Management• 13. QoS & Traffic Prioritization• 14. Location Characterization• 15. Security & Security Management• 16. Radio Environment• 17. Intra-technology Coexistence• 18. Inter-technology Coexistence• 19. Unique Device Identification• 20. Technology Specification Source• 21. Deployment Domain Characterization• 22. Exclusions

November 2010


Slide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

•IEEE 802 contributed a number of suggestions on how to change the NIST PAP#2 Report r6. These were contained in documents 1210 and 1209.

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1209-00-0000-comment-set-1-on-pap-2-report-r6.doc

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1210-01-0000-comment-set-2-on-pap-2-report-r6.ppt

November 2010


Slide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Material for this meeting

r6+change suggestions

Section 4 edited

Matrix v5+changes

Section 4 edited

November 2010


Slide 9

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #01

• Section 4.2.1.3 talks about Coverage Area. It is important to discuss coverage in conjunction with data rates and link margin for example, in order to avoid associations between inconsistent pieces of information, e.g., citing the largest coverage area achievable by a given technology along with the highest data rate achievable by the technology is incorrect – generally the two have a reverse relationship and the highest coverage is achievable at the lowest data rate.

• Agreed to text change:• Add the following text at the end of Section 4.2.1.3: When

comparing coverage areas between different technologies, it is important to take into account the link budgets used in the coverage computation. Note that the largest coverage area achievable by a specific technology typically requires transmission at the lowest data rate used by that technology.

November 2010


Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #02a

• Section 4.2.1.4 talks about Mobility. It would be useful to mention the data rates achievable at various mobility levels to avoid assumptions that mobile devices can communicate at the highest data rates used by a specific technology.

• Agreed to text change:

• Add the following text at the end of Section 4.2.1.4: Comparisons between the capabilities of different mobile technologies have to take into account the maximum data rate achievable at each mobility level -- mobile devices may not be able to communicate at the highest available data rates when moving at high speeds.

November 2010


Slide 11

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #03• Section 4.2.1.5 talks about Data Rates. • Agreed text change: • Add the following text at the end of Section 4.2.1.5: Additional factors to

consider when discussing data rates:• Throughput must be considered in conjunction with packet size,

coverage range and rate of mobility (if any). • It is important to distinguish between unicast, multicast and broadcast

rates, as they may not be the same for a given wireless technology. • Throughput depends on medium access scheduling, including the

capability to provide block transmissions (whereby multiple data packets can be sent in succession with minimum or no individual medium access operations per packet except before the first packet is sent), and/or block acknowledgements (whereby a single acknowledgement packet can acknowledge multiple preceding data packets). The capability and flexibility to optimize block transmissions and acknowledgements can have a significant effect on GoodPut.

• The use of rate adaptation mechanisms, where the data rate on a link is modified when the quality of the link changes.

November 2010


Slide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Add these definitions to Section 2.2Broadcast• Broadcast is a form of message transmission where a message is sent

from a single source to all potential receiving nodes.

Multicast• Multicast is a form of message transmission where a message is sent

from a single source to a subset of all potential receiving nodes. (The mechanism for selecting the members of the subset is not part of this definition.)

Unicast• Unicast is a form of message transmission where a message is sent from

a single source is sent to a single receiving node.

November 2010


Slide 13

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #04

• Section 4.2.1.6 talks about RF utilization.

• Agreed text change:

• Add the following text at the end of Section 4.2.1.6: – Consider the power level regulations for the different channels

used by a particular technology.

– Consider the impact of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) regulations on the channels used by a particular technology, e.g., certain UNII channels are subject to DFS regulation which requires wireless devices to change channel when they detect the use of radar on their current channel.

November 2010


Slide 14

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #05

• Section 4.2.1.7 talks about Data Frames and Packets. It is important to consider frame duration in conjunction with data rate and size of the frame. Also, we need to consider multicast and broadcast frames in addition to unicast frames.

• Agreed text change:• Modify item “a)” in Section 4.2.1.7 as follows:• What is the maximum frame duration for a unicast, multicast and

broadcast frame respectively, and what are the corresponding frame size and data rate at which each type of frame was sent?

• Modify item “b)” in Section 4.2.1.7 as follows:• What is the maximum packet size that can be sent in one unicast,

multicast and broadcast radio frame respectively?• Modify item “c)” in Section 4.2.1.7 as follows:• Does the radio system support segmentation of unicast, multicast and

broadcast packets respectively, when the payload size exceeds the capacity of one radio frame?

November 2010


Slide 15

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #06• Section 4.2.2.4 talks about Connection Topologies. The Bus and Ring

topology need to be removed, they are not wireless topologies. One way to characterize wireless topologies is as single hop and multi-hop (statically configured or mesh), and wireless links as point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and omnidirectional. We need to add figures that correspond to the text we end up with.

• Agreed text change:

• Remove the Bus and Ring figures

• Replace the current text in Section 4.2.2.4 with the following: Wireless network topologies can be divided into single hop and multi-hop, where a multi-hop topology can be statically configured, or can be dynamic and self-forming, e.g., a mesh. A wireless link can be point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, or broadcast.

• Add the definitions on the following 4 slides to Section 2.2

November 2010


Slide 16

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Hop Definitions

• Proposed PAP2 Guidelines Document Definitions• Hop: The term hop is used to signify a link between a

pair of devices that a frame or packet needs to traverse to reach one device from the other.

• Single-Hop Network: A single-hop network is one in which devices can only communicate with each other directly, e.g., over a single link (hop), and do not have the capability to forward traffic on each other’s behalf.

• Multi-Hop Network: A multi-hop network is one in which devices have the capability to forward traffic on each other’s behalf and can thus communicate along paths composed of multiple links (hops).

November 2010


Slide 17

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Configuring Definition• Statically Configured Multi-Hop Network: A multi-hop

network can be statically configured, such that each node’s forwarding decisions are dictated by configuration.

• Dynamic and Self-Configuring Multi-Hop Network: A multi-hop network can be dynamic and self-configuring, such that network devices have the ability to discover (multi-hop) forwarding paths in the network and make their own forwarding decisions based on various pre-configured constraints and requirements, e.g., lowest delay or highest throughput.

November 2010


Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

MESH Definition• Mesh Network: A mesh network is a dynamic self-

configuring network composed of devices that can forward traffic on each other’s behalf, have the ability to discover (multi-hop) forwarding paths in the network and make their own forwarding decisions based on various pre-configured constraints and requirements, e.g., lowest delay or highest throughput.

November 2010


Slide 19

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #07• Section 4.2.2.5 talks about Connection Management. The

section needs to mention what aspects of “connection management” can be used to compare different wireless technologies. For example, we can evaluate the latency to join a network, available security mechanisms employed when joining a network, and overhead to join the network (number of control packets exchanged). Perhaps section titles such as “Network Participation Mechanisms” or “Joining the Network” are more descriptive of the content of this section.

November 2010


Slide 20

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment 07bAdd the following text at the end of Section 4.2.2.5:

• It is important to evaluate:

– the time it takes for a device to join a particular network, and the overhead required to do so

– the time and overhead required to rejoin the network when a device becomes disconnected from the network

– the overhead required to maintain membership in the network after the initial admission into the network

– the overhead associated with optimizing connectivity, e.g., in mesh-based topologies.

November 2010


Slide 21

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #08• Section 4.2.3.2 talks about Location Characterization. It seems like

many of the techniques applicable to this section are not technology-specific but implementation-specific and as such can be incorporated across different wireless technologies even if they are not currently incorporated into the products of a specific wireless technology. It would be helpful to make the distinction between technology-specific properties and product-specific properties in the text.

• Agreed text change:• Add the following text at the end of Section 4.2.3.2:

• It is important to distinguish between technology-specific mechanisms for location characterization and mechanisms that are applicable across technologies or communication topologies, which can easily be added to products that may not currently support them.

November 2010


Slide 22

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #09• A category that is missing from Section 4 is one that

characterizes the deployment complexity of each technology.

• Agreed text change: Add the following text after Section 4.2.4.1:

• 4.2.5 Group 22: Deployment Complexity

• It is important to evaluate the complexity of:

– installation and maintenance of a given wireless system

– integration with other, possibly existing, networks

– expansion of the wireless network coverage over time.

November 2010


Slide 23

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

General Comment #10

• It would be helpful to have some tables and text summarizing the information in Section 5, and to move a lot of the discussions/derivations to an appendix. Otherwise, the message/conclusions/recommendations get lost in the text.

November 2010


Slide 24

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

General Comment #11Section 4.2.1.2 (p. 24) talks about voice and video traffic over the smart

grid. We need more use cases motivating why we would want to have voice and

video traffic over the smart grid network. The current set of use cases supplied by OpenSG does not currently contain this service.

The only video example given in the text is one of surveillance of affected outage areas. It would seem that voice and video might be of lower priority during outages, e.g., caused by disasters or weather-related events, since the network would require a high degree of availability for its regular functions. In addition, surveillance is generally part of the public safety infrastructure and there is spectrum allocated for such use so I am not convinced that we should be discussing this kind of application in the context of the smart grid.

• Applications such as voice and video have requirements that even broadband network providers are struggling with (wireless and landline) and making them part of the smart grid infrastructure requires significant justification.

November 2010


Slide 25

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

General Comment #12

• Link Availability in Section 4.2.1.1 does not appear to be consistently calculated for the various candidate various radio technologies, nor did majority of the technology candidates describe the method used to calculate availability.

• The current description of the characteristic does not match the calculation.

• Both of these issues need to be resolved before progressing to completion of Sections 6 & 7.

• “The technology “Operating Point” chosen is presumably chosen recognizing that achieving a low failure rate is desirable.”

• Agreed text change: Change this sentence to• “The technology “Operating Point” is chosen to achieve a low failure rate and is an

outcome of deployment flexibility & strategy.”

November 2010


Slide 26

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Comment #13 Para 2 Recommended change

• Reword the preface to incorporate the idea that SG application requirements evolve over time, yielding to experience rather than remain locked in 1989 or 1999 or 2009 economics.

• Smart Grid application requirements must be defined with enough specificity to quantitatively define communications traffic and levels of performance over the lifetime of the applications. Applications requirements must be combined with as complete a set of management and security requirements for the life-cycle of the equipment. The decisions to apply wireless for any given set of applications can then be based on expected performance and costs over the projected useful lifetimes of the spectrum and equipment.

November 2010


Slide 27

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0

Submission

Agenda Topics for the Week

Action Item

• Finalize change suggestions for the NIST PAP#2 Report

• Information Items

• SGIP update

• OpenSG update

• P2030 update

• ITU Focus Group

• March Tutorial topics/speakers

286/8/2010 Footer for this presentation

CATALOG OF STANDARDSCATALOG OF STANDARDS

04/19/23

Mark KlererSGIP Plenary Vice Chair

2929

CATALOG OF STANDARDS (STATUS OF WORK IN CATALOG OF STANDARDS (STATUS OF WORK IN PROGRESS)PROGRESS)

3030

• Process– NIST Framework and Roadmap for SG Interoperability v1.0 identifies many standards to consider– Additional standards can be identified to the SGIP Administrator by any SGIP member for potential

inclusion in catalog– Relevance and importance evaluated by appropriate SGIP working group (e.g. DEWG, PAP, etc) and

consensus developed– 75% approval by SGIP membership required prior to SGIPGB approval for inclusion in the catalog– Standards included in the catalog may be deprecated from further use to changes in technology or

needs by following the same process.

• Catalog Structure– Entries in catalog to be structured based on application domain defined in the Framework and

further classified by GWAC stack

• Relationship to NIST and FERC lists– Standards Catalog strives for accurate characterization and relevance to the smart grid community,

and avoids recommendation– Standards Catalog expected to be a larger compilation which can inform NIST and FERC in their

decision processes

CATALOG OF STANDARDS: PROCESS & CATALOG OF STANDARDS: PROCESS & STRUCTURESTRUCTURE

316/8/2010 Footer for this presentation

TESTING & CERTIFICATION COMMITTEETESTING & CERTIFICATION COMMITTEE

04/19/23

Rik DrummondSGTCC Chair

32November 2010 32

PURPOSEPURPOSE• Establish a Testing and Certification Framework for the Smart Grid• Establish a brand called ‘Interoperability’ that has a consistent meaning across

the Smart Grid for the buyers of interoperable products.– At this time a set of products deemed interoperable may be interoperable with a 80%,

95%, 99%, or 100% confidence level. Thus to say a product is interoperable has little current meaning in the market place as many purchasing organizations have found.

6/8/2010 Footer for this presentation 3333

Deliverables D3 – Interoperability Process Reference Manual

(IPRM) is being finalized for SGIP review. Interoperability Maturity Assessment Tool

completed

Activities and Accomplishments D3 – Interoperability Process Reference Manual

(IPRM) completed 1st review and comment period during St. Louis meetings; comment resolution and final editing remains in progress

Began piloting IPRM with several Interoperability Testing and Certification Authorities (ITCA) who have expressed willingness to cooperate and participate in assessing their organizations against the IPRM recommendations.

Prepared draft ITCA audit process document and checklist in preparation for ITCA reviews

Launched discussion with accreditation bodies for future independent ITCA reviews

Upcoming Key Milestones and Activities Presentation on SGTCC framework and plan to

the SGIP on October 29 to build awareness and support for the process

Completing 2-3 ITCA reviews by late November Updates to the IPRM based on experience

gathered during the ITCA review process, and revision/release in early January

Engaging with the CSWG testing sub-team to coordinate security related testing issues

Issues, Concerns, and Help Needed Obtaining timely cooperation from the ITCAs to

participate in the review process with the TCC, and accelerating their commitment to adopt and enact the SGTCC recommendations in their operations

Engaging end users to gain their commitment towards requiring IPRM conformance for ITCAs certifying the products that they purchase

October 2010 Activities - PMO Monthly Report

SGTCC MONTHLY QUAD CHARTSGTCC MONTHLY QUAD CHART

34November 2010 34

DEFINITIONSDEFINITIONS• ITCA – Interoperability Testing and Certification Authority • Framework Manual - IPRM – Interoperability Program Reference Manual• ISO 65 - General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification

Systems• ISO 17025 – General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration

Laboratories • SGTCC Interoperability Test Construction Best Practices – Lists of best practices

not covered in ISO 65 and ISO 17025• SGTCC/CSWG Cyber Security Testing Best/Standard Practices –List of best

practices not covered in ISO 65 and ISO 17025• Interoperability Maturity Assessment Model – looking for IOP products based on

standards NOW.

6/8/2010 Footer for this presentation 3535

GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE FRAMEWORK GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE FRAMEWORK MANUALMANUAL

ISO Guide 17025 ISO Guide 65

Best Practices for IOP Test Construction Best/Standard Practices for Cyber Security Test Construction

Introduction, Responsibilities, Rationale, Usage and Checklists

2011 Transition Bootstrap Support Plan for ITCAs

Evaluation Checklist for ITCA Delta to Manual

Framework Manual

36November 2010 36

• ISO Guide 65 contains the requirements necessary for an organization to demonstrate competence to perform certification activities related to the standards or specifications stated in the certification

• ISO Guide 65 criteria include:– Technical competence

• Certifying personnel criteria; accessibility of certification test processes; assessment fairness and integrity and others

– Management systems• Quality management processes, technical dispute resolution processes• Lab qualification criteria, lists of certified products, record control, ongoing certification

maintenance and withdrawal process

• ISO Guide 65 conformance demonstrates a robust, thorough and meaningful certification program

• Implements a monitoring program for IOP products in the field to ensure IOP remains

ISO GUIDE 65 OVERVIEWISO GUIDE 65 OVERVIEW

3737

• ISO 17025 contains all requirements that laboratories need to demonstrate that they – operate a management system, – are technically competent, – are able to generate technically valid results.

• ISO 17025 is the most widely accepted and used standard for the operation of test laboratories

• ISO 17025 applies to any testing laboratory operation (1st, 2nd or 3rd party), with many 3rd party labs formally accredited

• It facilitates acceptance of test results from accredited laboratories and serves as the requirements that formal accreditation bodies apply in assessing laboratories.

ISO 17025 OVERVIEWISO 17025 OVERVIEW

38November 2010 38

– Test Suite Specification of a standard used for interoperability or conformance testing shall be managed in the same way as the standard they are derived from.

– IOP Certification test reports shall fully describe the test methodology used including the justification for statistical or deterministic testing.

– A certified interoperable product set shall also be conformant to the standard or profile of the standard.

– The only means to ensure interoperability among products is to perform a full matrix test.

BEST PRACTICES FOR IOP TEST CONSTRUCTION BEST PRACTICES FOR IOP TEST CONSTRUCTION EXAMPLESEXAMPLES

39November 2010 39

2011 TRANSITION BOOTSTRAP YEAR2011 TRANSITION BOOTSTRAP YEAR• SGTCC, with NIST will help bootstrap the process by offering tutorial help in 2011

to the first few committed ITCAs.– Preliminary review of implementation of ISO 65 and ISO 17025 implemented

processes.– Review and analysis of interoperability test construction best practices.– Other general guidance.

• Maintain a list for the industry showing ITCAs in the process of implementing the Manual.

40November 2010 40

2011 TRANSITION BOOTSTRAP YEAR2011 TRANSITION BOOTSTRAP YEAR• SGTCC, with NIST will help bootstrap the process by offering tutorial help in 2011

to the first few committed ITCAs.– Preliminary review of implementation of ISO 65 and ISO 17025 implemented

processes.– Review and analysis of interoperability test construction best practices.– Other general guidance.

• Maintain a list for the industry showing ITCAs in the process of implementing the Manual.

41November 2010 41

2012 AND BEYOND2012 AND BEYOND• ITCAs will be using Test Labs using ISO 17025, and ISO 65 standards and be

accredited by the existing formal accreditation organizations. • SGTCC will maintain lists of SGIP Approved ITCAs (those implementing the

Manual) for a standard and demonstrating the production of interoperable products. The products of the standard will be monitored for interoperability in the field by ITCA and secondarily by SGTCC

• Accreditation Bodies (e.g., NVLAP and ANSI) will periodically audit test labs and certification bodies using the Manual as guidance and re-accredit them. SGTCC will subsequently update the ‘SGIP ITCA Approved List ’.

Note many Test lab now use ISO 17025, but not the IOP best practices. Also many ITCAs do not use ISO 65.

42November 2010 42

NEXT STEPS AND YOUR RESPONSENEXT STEPS AND YOUR RESPONSE• Receive SGIP consensus for Manual / Framework• Each SGIP member MUST REQUIRE the purchase of interoperable products to

initiate the monetary incentive for many of the ITCAs to upgrade to the Manual / Framework.

– Note: this is an issue about wide scale interoperability across the smart grid. Having only a percentage requiring interop products will in many ways leave us in our current state.

• SGTCC will offer two Webinars in late November and early December to address questions and concerns. To be announced.

43November 2010 43

GB Election Timeline – Even Stakeholders, 2010

44November 2010 44

UPCOMING 2010 PLENARY EVENTSUPCOMING 2010 PLENARY EVENTS• 30 Nov – 3 Dec: Grid-Interop, Chicago

– See http://www.grid-interop.com/2010/#agenda for detailed agenda

Mon.11/29

Tue.11/30

Wed.12/1

Thu.12/2

Fri.12/3

8.00 am GB Meeting

10.30 am PAPs & WGs PAPs & WGs

12.00 pm

LUNCH

1.00 pmOptional Meetings

Opening Plenary

Closing Plenary

3.30 pmDEWGs &

CommitteesPAPs & WGs PAPs & WGs

Optional Meetings

5.00 pm Candidate Interviews

andOptional Meetings

7.00 pm PAPs & WGs

9.00 pm

45November 2010 45

2011 Plenary Meeting Schedule

Month Date Time Detail

Jan 21 1 – 3 p.m. Virtual Meeting/Conf. Call

Feb

Mar 29-31 All Day F2F: Nashville likely

Apr

May 26 1 – 3 p.m. Virtual Meeting/Conf. Call hosted @ ConnectivityWeek

Jun

Jul 12-14 All Day F2F: Montreal, Canada – International theme

Aug

Sep 15 1 – 3 p.m. Virtual Meeting/Conf. Call hosted @ GridWeek

Oct

Nov

Dec 5-8 All Day F2F: Grid-Interop, Phoenix

Doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0 Submission November 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 Smart Grid...

Documents

Transcript of Doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1316r0 Submission November 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 Smart Grid...