Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Welcome CIP Version 7!

This post will make a lot more sense if you read yesterday's post.  To the extent that any of this makes sense, of course.

It's not every day that I get to announce a new birth, but I'm pleased to announce that an email from the CIP v5 Revisions Standards Drafting Team today made it official: the two standards - formerly part of v6 - that they are revising now in preparation for hopefully final approval by the NERC ballot body and the Board of Trustees will be called Version 7!

However, it's possible the paternity is in doubt, because the birth announcement didn't actually use the phrase "CIP Version 7".  Instead, it pointed out that "the SDT will use -7 and -3 for the posting of the revisions addressing the low impact and transient devices directives."

Now that's NERC-speak.  Since I have become a fluent translator of that arcane language, here is what it means in English: "Since we submitted to the BoT (on Nov. 10) a complete set of CIP Version 6 standards, including standards labelled CIP-003-6 and CIP-010-2, we can't use those same numbers for the revised versions of CIP-003 and CIP-010 that we're working on now. Therefore, we need to call these new versions CIP-003-7 and CIP-010-3.  And that means that these are the first (and probably only) standards in the CIP Version 7 family!  We'll have a cake in the lunchroom at noon."

But there is a more serious implication of this.  Just last week, I calculated the exact CIP version number that NERC entities will have to comply with over the next few years: v5.7879.  I regret that number now needs to be revised, since there will be two fewer v6 standards in the compliance mix, plus two new v7 standards.

Unfortunately, the algorithm I used to compute the version number didn't contemplate that there could be three versions to be complied with at the same time, so I need to develop a new algorithm.  I will of course consult with the best mathematicians on this, but if anyone wishes to send me what they think the correct algorithm should be, I would like to see that.  Of course, all royalties from its use will go to you, the inventor.  I calculate you should be able to afford a pretty nice Snickers bar, although you may have to add a dime or two to make up the cost.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own and don’t necessarily represent the views or opinions of Honeywell.

No comments:

Post a Comment