I noticed that my recent draft still used Certificates. It is my fault for going so far between drafts that things fell through the cracks
We talked a lot, but I am unsure of what we ended up deciding instead…
"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker
From: Derek N LaSalle [mailto:derek.n.lasalle@jpmorgan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:45 AM
To: 'jpetze@gmail.com'; 'Toby.Considine@gmail.com'
Subject: Re: [emix] The Problem of certificates
I second John's assertion.
I would like to comment on the current proposal to use the name certificates. I want to strongly recommend that the name be reconsidered. The term certificates is closely linked to information security -- cryptographic certificates to secure communications. Given that security will be an equally important part of the smart grid and communication of signals including prices I believe that we should consider a name that does not already have such a well accepted meaning.
John Petze
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@gmail.com> wrote:
The Problem of certificates
We have electricity and a [potentially] long list of attributes, that ideally should be sold together. We are calling the attributes certificates, and each may have its own price. In concept, a bundle of certificates could be sold without electricity at the same speed.
For the smart grid to be smart, it must address the fundamental problem of the new volatile grid, that is, it must be aligned in time, and transactions must be able to clear in time. For this to avoid failing under the weight of its internal inconsistencies., the primary market for the certificates must clear in the same time slices as does the electricity. I say Primary Market, to ties to the Primary sale of Electricity, hover many times it may occur in the near instantaneous path through the market channels from supplier to consumer.
This in no way forfends gathering certificates gained in the primary market for later resale in a secondary markets. The smart grid happily encourages the sale of indulgences; it should assert, though, that those indulgences for sale be gathered honestly, that is a time-clearing market.
This suggests to me that EMIX is an envelope. The envelope may require being sealed, with sealing wax or checksum as needed, at the time of transaction. Inside the envelope there are a series documents. One document is electricity and price, with physical values, i.e., power factor, reliability, response time, etc. The other documents are the certificates. The seal is what provides traceability to the bundled transaction, whether in primary or secondary markets.
Question 1: What is written on the envelope?
One thought would suggest the total price for the whole bundle. In the null / dump system, the AHAM refrigerator might read only the envelope… What needs to be on the envelope
The other thought suggest the Envelop has nothing other than Offeror, Offeror transaction ID, and signature/checksum. This would require the small device to be able to unpack and sum the documents in the envelope.
Question 2:
Does any unpacked document / certificate later packaged for re-sale include the Offeror, Offeror transaction ID from the envelope it was pulled out of to allow traceability? Would we demand (outside of scope) that market blenders have a virtual pool of certs in in this form, and certs our with the pool as the offeror? I ask this question to explore whether the EMIX and certs are complete.
"Energy and persistence conquer all things." -- Benjamin Franklin
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.