[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: EI-CTS Feedback
|
page 9 line 23-26: This paragraph seems out of place as it is getting into the specifics of how any TE system should be designed, not just one using CTS. page 9 line 41-42 Since CTS doesn't define the full protocol stack, interoperability with minimal or no change is not guaranteed. page 10 line 53-54 What is meant by "none are interoperable either at the system level or for the actors"? Surely the systems were function and thus allowed the participants to interoperate. Do you means they weren't standardized
and didn't interoperate across demonstrations and deployments? page 15 line 228 Resource definition should include the value of the commodity also depending on the location of delivery, right? page 15 Table 2-1 What about distributed or consensus mechanisms that do not necessarily communicate instruments among market participants? It seems like these mechanisms would not be supported by CTS, true? page 16 line 261-262 It has already been stated that CTS does not prescribe the nature of the matching engine but doesn't the definition of part and counter-party at least strongly imply some kind of matched bi-lateral trade?
Double-auctions can artificially create the appearance of bi-lateral trades after the clearing price and quantity have been established but it would be a layer of artifice. For the concept of "party" and "counter-party" to be an integral part of CTS seems
to heavily lean towards bi-lateral matching engines. page 16 line 268-269 "CTS message may be thought of as..." Are there consequences if I think of them in a different way? That is, perhaps the "may" should be changed to "must" or "shall" if that is the best and only way to think
of them. page 16 line 273 Doesn't the nature of the matching engine define the nature of the messages needing to be exchanged? Submitting tenders to an order book can require the communication of different information than that of
a double-auction (point price-quantity pairs vs full supply or demand curves). Doesn't this require that the Actors are aware of this when submitting messages? I don't understand how "this complexity is hidden from the Actors". page 18 line 304 These questions seem out of character to include in a standard. page 18 line 307 "Delegation" is an undefined term up to this point in the document. "PartyID" is an undefined term up to this point in the document. page 30 line 668 "CTS Delivery is used to report and power flow from a node..." may not be the sentence you're trying to write. The meaning is unclear to me. page 30 line 668 "Every contract involves a includes a party that promises..." Something got messed up here. page 30 line 674 "In most TE markets, taking a greater delivery than contracted for in any interval..." Back-to-back prepositions are not clear to me. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]