Cloud-Based Interoperability in Residential Energy Systems

Ammar Malik; Darren Leniston; David Ryan; Jack Jackman; Terence O'Donnell

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 17 references

Cloud-Based Interoperability in Residential Energy Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper shows how a home solar inverter's Modbus registers can be mapped to IEEE 2030.5 smart-grid telemetry and control, with a cloud-pushed Volt-VAR curve changing reactive power output in real time.

desk verdict A clean lab-scale integration of Modbus inverters with IEEE 2030.5 via Azure and a Raspberry Pi; the architecture is coherent but the latency, scalability, and voltage-regulation claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05076 v1 pith:DOX6W3HL submitted 2025-06-05 eess.SY cs.SY

Darren Leniston , David Ryan , Ammar Malik , Jack Jackman , Terence O'Donnell This is my paper

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords smartgridgatewayIEEE2030.5SunSpecModbusVolt-VARcurveedgecomputingdistributedenergyresourcestelemetrymappingremoteconfiguration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that ordinary residential inverters, which speak Modbus, can be brought into IEEE 2030.5-based smart grid control without replacing the hardware. It builds a gateway with cloud orchestration and demonstrates the full chain: live SunSpec Modbus telemetry from a Fronius Primo inverter is mapped to IEEE 2030.5 JSON structures, and a new Volt-VAR curve pushed from the cloud mid-experiment changes the inverter's reactive power output. The payoff is that distribution operators could remotely delegate voltage-support behavior to heterogeneous customer-owned devices and observe them through one standard interface. The demonstration is a laboratory Hardware-in-the-Loop test, not a field trial.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gateway's mapping-and-cache layer: a containerised microservice on the edge device that holds a local dictionary of IEEE 2030.5 mappings and Volt-VAR curve bounds, and translates between SunSpec Modbus registers and IEEE 2030.5 JSON. Cloud functions (Azure IoT Hub Direct Methods such as 'updateGatewayCache' and 'getTelemetry') trigger the gateway to fetch register values, map them to IEEE 2030.5 fields, and push them to the cloud, or to write new control setpoints back to the inverter. This small cache plus cloud orchestration is what allows legacy Modbus hardware to participate in standardised grid control.

What would settle it

Re-run the VVC experiment with a documented feeder model and record bus voltage at the inverter terminal; if a pushed VVC2 does not reduce reactive power along the curve's slope when voltage crosses the threshold, or if voltage stays outside the target band, the dynamic voltage-regulation claim is disproven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an edge gateway with a microservice-based mapping layer can make Modbus-based DER devices appear as IEEE 2030.5-compliant endpoints, and that the same channel can carry control changes. In the paper's own test, register 40083 (active power), 40072 (voltage), 40076 (current), 40070 (frequency), and 40084 (reactive power) from the Fronius Primo are translated into DERStatus/W, DERStatus/V, DERCapability/Amp, DERStatus/Hz, and DERStatus/VAR fields. The Volt-VAR experiment defines two curves with different reactive-power limits; while VVC1 is active, the cloud invokes the 'updateGatewayCache' method, the gateway converts the new JSON bounds into a reactive-power setpoint over Modbus TCP/IP, and the plotted reactive power transitions to the reduced VVC2 envelope. The paper reads this as confirmation that the update was successfully applied and executed, demonstrating dynamic cloud-to-edge VVC control with minimal latency.

Load-bearing premise

The loaded premise is that the laboratory Hardware-in-the-Loop setup faithfully emulates real grid voltage behaviour, so the observed reactive-power response counts as voltage regulation rather than just a commanded setpoint change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A utility can poll one IEEE 2030.5 interface and see telemetry from inverters whose native registers differ by vendor, because the mapping is done at the gateway.
Volt-VAR curve updates can be deployed to the edge during operation rather than at commissioning, so grid-support behavior can follow changing feeder conditions.
The same gateway and cloud mechanism supports curtailment commands, remote configuration, and mapping updates, not just VVC transfer.
Because the mapper is containerised and cloud-orchestrated, the architecture can move to HEMS or direct-to-cloud inverter connections with refactoring of the mapper software.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension is to push other standard-defined control modes (Volt-Watt, frequency-Watt, fixed power factor) through the same 'updateGatewayCache' path, since the mechanism is generic JSON-to-Modbus translation, not VVC-specific.
The paper's latency claim would be stronger with a quantitative time-stamped measure from cloud request to inverter actuation; that number is not reported.
If the gateway translates curves into setpoints rather than programming the inverter's own curve, then the approach extends to non-SunSpec inverters only insofar as they expose writable reactive-power registers.
The architecture implies a possible scalability question: each gateway holds mappings in a local cache updated by cloud methods, so fleet-wide dynamic curve changes would need a management layer that batches or schedules updates.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you do DER integration. The concrete new thing here is a working reference path: a Fronius Primo's SunSpec Modbus registers mapped to IEEE 2030.5 telemetry, with a cloud-pushed Volt-VAR curve update executed through an Azure IoT Hub and a Raspberry Pi gateway. That is a real integration demonstration, not a new algorithm, and the paper is mostly honest about that.

The good parts: the mapping table and sequence diagrams are clear, the dashboard screenshot shows actual telemetry, and the VVC experiment in Figure 10 shows a visible change in reactive power after the update. For someone building a similar gateway, this is a useful example.

The soft spots are real but addressable. The abstract says minimal latency and scalable, but no latency numbers or scale tests appear anywhere. The HiL setup in Section 5.2 is described in one sentence; there is no feeder model, no emulator parameters, no voltage profile, and no validation that the emulated voltage matches anything real. Because the voltage stimulus and the curve update happen at the same time, the change in Q could partly be a response to the voltage change, not just the new curve. Worse, an open-loop voltage source can only show setpoint following, not actual voltage regulation. To claim impact on local voltage regulation you need a closed loop where inverter reactive power feeds back through a known impedance. That claim should be toned down.

Two smaller things: references [1] and [2] are template placeholders, which looks bad in any submission. And Listing 1.1 is titled 'Reactive Power Reading' but the payload is register 40083, Active Power. Minor, but the kind of inconsistency that makes a reader trust the mapping less.

If I were editor, I'd send this to peer review. The integration is genuinely useful and the core architecture is coherent. I'd ask the authors to describe the HiL setup, provide latency measurements, either drop or defend scalability, and fix the references and listing. A revised version could be a solid systems paper for a workshop or a short conference paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a smart-grid gateway architecture that bridges SunSpec Modbus registers on a Fronius Primo inverter to IEEE 2030.5-compliant cloud telemetry and control, using Azure IoT services and an edge microservice layer. Section 5.1 reports a register-to-IEEE 2030.5 mapping and a JSON telemetry payload; Section 5.2 reports a Hardware-in-the-Loop test in which a Volt-VAR Curve is pushed from the cloud to the gateway and the inverter's reactive power output changes. The abstract further claims scalability and minimal latency for these dynamic control updates.

Significance. The work is a useful practical demonstration of standards-based DER interoperability, and the lab setup with a physical inverter is a concrete step beyond pure simulation. However, the key quantitative claims—minimal latency and impact on local voltage regulation—are not supported by measurements, and the VVC experiment is under-specified. The architectural design itself is plausible and modular, but the current evidence base supports only a proof-of-concept demonstration, not the broader claims made in the abstract.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.2, Figure 10] The paper's central claim that the dynamically pushed VVC2 was 'successfully applied and executed' is not established because the Hardware-in-the-Loop setup is described only as 'emulat[ing] changes in voltage conditions in a controlled manner', with no voltage stimulus time series, emulator parameters, or feeder model. The observed change in reactive power between the VVC1 and VVC2 segments could be due to a difference in the emulated voltage trajectory rather than to the curve update; without a fixed or characterized voltage stimulus, the figure alone cannot be interpreted. The additional claim of 'impact on local voltage regulation' requires a closed-loop experiment in which inverter reactive power modulates the emulated node voltage through known feeder impedance; an open-loop voltage source only demonstrates setpoint following.
[Abstract, Section 5.2] The claim of 'minimal latency' for dynamic cloud-to-edge control is unsupported by any latency measurement in the paper. There is no timestamp data, no measurement of cloud-to-gateway command propagation, no gateway-to-inverter round-trip time, and no control-loop period reported. Since the abstract foregrounds this claim, either quantitative latency results should be added or the claim should be removed or substantially qualified.
[Abstract, Section 4.3, Figure 8] The 'scalable' claim is not demonstrated. Section 4.3 presents an architecture diagram (Figure 8), but the experimental results involve only one gateway and one inverter; there are no concurrent-device tests, no multi-gateway deployments, and no resource utilization measurements. Scalability is therefore an architectural assertion rather than an empirically supported property of the presented system.
[Listing 1.1, Table 1] Listing 1.1 is titled 'Example IEEE 2030.5 Reactive Power Reading' but contains Modbus register 40083 with description 'W (Active power)', whereas Table 1 assigns register 40083 to Active Power and register 40084 to Reactive Power. This internal inconsistency makes the mapping demonstration harder to trust and should be corrected before the paper can be accepted.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.2] There are several typographical errors, including 'utlises' for 'utilises', 'onotological' for 'ontological', 'assests' for 'assets', and 'Applicances' for 'Appliances' in the expansion of SAREF.
[Section 2.3] The sentence 'mitigate theses concerns by explore solutions' is grammatically incomplete and should read, for example, 'mitigate these concerns by exploring solutions'.
[Section 3.2] The phrase 'whether that be the inference of a reactive power set-point' is unclear; 'inference' appears to be a misuse and should likely be 'issuance' or 'derivation'.
[Listing 1.1] The JSON key '4 0 0 8 3' appears with spaces due to formatting; it should be presented as '40083' to be legible and consistent with the rest of the table.
[References] References [1] and [2] are template placeholders in the LNCS style and should be removed or replaced with actual citations.
[Section 5.2] The sentence 'the gateway device, which translated used the JSON structure to generate reactive power setpoints' contains a grammatical error ('translated used') and should be reworded for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is an empirical interoperability demonstration against external standards, with no fitted input presented as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an engineering demonstration: mapping a Fronius Primo inverter's SunSpec Modbus registers to IEEE 2030.5 telemetry and control, and deploying Volt-VAR curves from the cloud to the gateway. No derivation chain, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem is present. The register mappings in Table 1 and Listing 1.1 are checked against externally defined standards (SunSpec Modbus register addresses and IEEE 2030.5 field paths), not against the paper's own output. The VVC experiment in Section 5.2 shows a change in reactive power after VVC2 is pushed, and the two curves have different reactive power limits; this is a direct empirical observation, not a quantity that is equal to its input by construction. The paper does not fit any parameter to the VVC data and then call the result a prediction; the curves are defined before the test. References are background literature, and none is invoked as an unexamined load-bearing premise. The Skeptic's concern about the HiL setup lacking a documented feeder model or emulated voltage profile is a validity or completeness issue, not circularity: an unrepresentative test can weaken evidence without making the claim definitionally self-supporting. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities. The claims rest on standard assumptions about IEEE 2030.5 semantics, SunSpec register correctness, and HiL fidelity. The VVC curve bounds in Listings 1.2 and 1.3 are hand-selected test configuration, not model parameters fitted to data.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption IEEE 2030.5 function set semantics and REST/XML data models as implemented by the cloud platform are correct and complete.
The paper claims compliance with IEEE 2030.5 in Section 4.3 but does not test against a certified 2030.5 server or provide conformance results.
domain assumption The Hardware-in-the-Loop voltage emulation in Section 5.2 faithfully represents real distribution feeder voltage conditions.
No description of the HiL model, feeder parameters, or validation of the emulated voltage profile is given; the voltage regulation impact claim depends on this.
domain assumption The SunSpec Modbus register addresses in Table 1 correctly correspond to Fronius Primo inverter quantities.
Register addresses are stated without vendor documentation reference or independent verification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cloud-Based Interoperability in Residential Energy Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOX6W3HL

@misc{pith2026250605076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cloud-Based Interoperability in Residential Energy Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOX6W3HL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05076}
}

read the original abstract

As distributed energy resources (DERs) such as solar PV, batteries and electric vehicles become increasingly prevalent at the edge, maintaining grid stability requires advanced monitoring and control mechanisms. This paper presents a scalable smart grid gateway architecture that enables interoperability between Modbus-based inverters and IEEE 2030.5 cloud-based control systems. The proposed solution leverages Azure cloud services and edge-computing gateway devices to support dynamic configuration, telemetry ingestion, remote control and Volt-VAR Curve deployment. A microservice-based architecture ensures flexibility and scalability across diverse deployment scenarios, including both gateway-mediated and direct-to-cloud device communication. Results demonstrate the successful mapping of a Fronius Primo inverter's Modbus registers to IEEE 2030.5-compliant telemetry and control functions. Additionally, we evaluate real-time VVC updates and their impact on local voltage regulation, showcasing dynamic cloud-to-edge control with minimal latency. This work highlights the potential of virtualised, standards-based control infrastructures to support DER integration and active grid participation, while remaining adaptable to evolving smart grid architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05076 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Solar PV to Smart Grid Communications mapping 3.2 Semi Autonomous DER Control As smart grids evolve, consumers increasingly act as prosumers, contributing grid services via DERs such as solar PV, batteries and Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) enabled EVs. To prevent instability from widespread DER adoption, for example voltage fluctuations, frequency imbalances and reverse power flows, smart inverter-level control is essential… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** illustrates generation of the VVC in the DSO’s cloud environment and transmission to the household DER installation for actuation, whether that be the inference of a reactive power set-point, as is in this case, or the autonomous programming of the VVC on the inverter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** illustrates how device functions are invoked on a gateway device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Cloud to device control signal data flow Update Gateway Cache: Requests to this endpoint initiate the dataflow illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cloud to device mapping data flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Device to cloud telemetry data flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cloud system architecture IoT Hub: Serves as the central access point, handling authentication, bidirectional data flow, device twin updates and IEEE 2030.5-compliant telemetry ingestion. Device-Telemetry-Ingress: Is an Azure Function triggered by the Gateway-Device E…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Gateway device deployment and scalability architecture 5 Results To support testing the SG gateway device and platform, a laboratory test environment was utilised consisting of a Fronius Primo single-phase inverter acting as the representative SG device. The smart gri…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: presents a sample of the SG Platform visualisation of gathered telemetry readings from the test system in the laboratory, including device location, AC Power, Voltage, AC Energy and Line Frequency viewable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Reactive power response before and after VVC update 6 Future Work While the current cloud system assumes a gateway device sits between SG devices and the cloud, alternative architectures are emerging. Some buildings may use local energy management systems (HEMS) or t…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Cloud architecture to support HEMS/third-party cloud systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Cloud architecture to support native smart grid device control Acknowledgments. This study was funded by SEAI (Sustainable Energy Authority Of Ireland) in collaboration with ESB Networks, with support from SIRFN and OPENSVP. References 1. Author, A.-B.: Contribution …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

In: 9th International Proceedings on Proceedings, pp

Author, A.-B.: Contribution title. In: 9th International Proceedings on Proceedings, pp. 1–2. Publisher, Location (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

LNCS Homepage,http://www.springer.com/lncs, last accessed 2023/10/25

work page 2023
[3]

A secure wireless control of Remote Terminal Unit using the Internet of Things in smart grids,

A. Lekbich, A. Belfqih, C. Zedak, J. Boukherouaa and F. El Mariami, "A secure wireless control of Remote Terminal Unit using the Internet of Things in smart grids," 2018 6th International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Com- munications (WINCOM), Marrakesh, Morocco, 2018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/WIN- COM.2018.8629620. Cloud-Based Interoperability...

work page arXiv 2018
[4]

Enhancement of OpenADR communica- tion for flexible fast ADR aggregation using TRAP mechanism of IEEE1888 proto- col,

C. Ninagawa, T. Iwahara and K. Suzuki, "Enhancement of OpenADR communica- tion for flexible fast ADR aggregation using TRAP mechanism of IEEE1888 proto- col," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Seville, Spain, 2015, pp. 2450-2454, doi: 10.1109/ICIT.2015.7125458

work page arXiv 2015
[5]

ZeroTouch Provisioning (ZTP) Model and Infrastructure Components for Multi-provider Cloud Services Provisioning,

Y. Demchenko et al., "ZeroTouch Provisioning (ZTP) Model and Infrastructure Components for Multi-provider Cloud Services Provisioning," 2016 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Cloud Engineering Workshop (IC2EW), Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 184-189, doi: 10.1109/IC2EW.2016.50

work page doi:10.1109/ic2ew.2016.50 2016
[6]

Distributed AI in Zero-Touch Provisioning for Edge Networks: Challenges and Research Directions,

A. Hazra et al., "Distributed AI in Zero-Touch Provisioning for Edge Networks: Challenges and Research Directions," in Computer, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 69-78, March 2024, doi: 10.1109/MC.2023.3334913. keywords: Artificial intelligence

arXiv 2024
[7]

Research on cloud security construction of power grid in smart era,

G. Feng, Q. Huang, Z. Deng, H. Zou and J. Zhang, "Research on cloud security construction of power grid in smart era," 2022 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Data Science and Computer Application (ICDSCA), Dalian, China, 2022, pp. 976-980, doi: 10.1109/ICDSCA56264.2022.9987863

work page arXiv 2022
[8]

Digital Twin Federation and Data Validation Method,

M. -S. Baek, "Digital Twin Federation and Data Validation Method," 2022 27th Asia Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC), Jeju Island, Korea, Republic of, 2022, pp. 445-446, doi: 10.1109/APCC55198.2022.9943622

work page arXiv 2022

Show all 17 references

[9]

Applications of Digital Twin System in a Smart City System with Multi-Energy,

Q. Lu, H. Jiang, S. Chen, Y. Gu, T. Gao and J. Zhang, "Applications of Digital Twin System in a Smart City System with Multi-Energy," 2021 IEEE 1st International Conference on Digital Twins and Parallel Intelligence (DTPI), Beijing, China, 2021, pp. 58-61, doi: 10.1109/DTPI529...

2021
[10]

Evolution of Power System CIM to Digital Twins - A Comprehensive Review and Analysis,

V. M. Balijepalli, F. Sielker and G. Karmakar, "Evolution of Power System CIM to Digital Twins - A Comprehensive Review and Analysis," 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), Espoo, Finland, 2021, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ISGTEurope52324.2021.9640174

2021
[11]

Application of AI to Develop a Digital Twin of Energy Communities: Conceptual Approach,

D. Koeva and R. Kutkarska, "Application of AI to Develop a Digital Twin of Energy Communities: Conceptual Approach," 2024 5th International Conference on Communications, Information, Electronic and Energy Systems (CIEES), Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, 2024, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/C...

2024
[12]

Evaluation of Interoperable Dis- tributed Energy Resources to IEEE 1547.1 Using SunSpec Modbus, IEEE 1815, and IEEE 2030.5,

J. Johnson, B. Fox, K. Kaur and J. Anandan, "Evaluation of Interoperable Dis- tributed Energy Resources to IEEE 1547.1 Using SunSpec Modbus, IEEE 1815, and IEEE 2030.5," in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 142129-142146, 2021, doi: 10.1109/AC- CESS.2021.3120304

2021
[13]

DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403867

IEEE Standards Association,IEEE Standard for Smart Energy Profile Application Protocol, IEEE Std 2030.5-2018, 2018. DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403867

2018
[14]

Crimmins, S.,Common Information Model CIM Primer(8th ed.), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2022

2022
[15]

SARGON – Smart Energy Domain Ontology,

Haghgoo, M., Daniele, L., Nikiforakis, A., de Vos, M., and Wissing, C., “SARGON – Smart Energy Domain Ontology,”IET Smart Cities, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 191–198, Dec. 2020. DOI: 10.1049/iet-smc.2020.0049

2020
[16]

Shi, J., Jin, L., and Li, J. (2019). The integration of Azure Sphere and Azure Cloud Services for Internet of Things.Applied Sciences, 9(13), 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9132746

2019 doi
[17]

15, 2023

Government of South Australia, "Technical Regulator Guideline: Remote Commu- nications Capabilities for Inverters—Declared Components of Electricity Infrastruc- ture or an Electrical Installation Associated with an Electricity Generating Plant; Deemed Methodologies for Remote ...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: 9th International Proceedings on Proceedings, pp

Author, A.-B.: Contribution title. In: 9th International Proceedings on Proceedings, pp. 1–2. Publisher, Location (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [2]

LNCS Homepage,http://www.springer.com/lncs, last accessed 2023/10/25

work page 2023

[3] [3]

A secure wireless control of Remote Terminal Unit using the Internet of Things in smart grids,

A. Lekbich, A. Belfqih, C. Zedak, J. Boukherouaa and F. El Mariami, "A secure wireless control of Remote Terminal Unit using the Internet of Things in smart grids," 2018 6th International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Com- munications (WINCOM), Marrakesh, Morocco, 2018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/WIN- COM.2018.8629620. Cloud-Based Interoperability...

work page arXiv 2018

[4] [4]

Enhancement of OpenADR communica- tion for flexible fast ADR aggregation using TRAP mechanism of IEEE1888 proto- col,

C. Ninagawa, T. Iwahara and K. Suzuki, "Enhancement of OpenADR communica- tion for flexible fast ADR aggregation using TRAP mechanism of IEEE1888 proto- col," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Seville, Spain, 2015, pp. 2450-2454, doi: 10.1109/ICIT.2015.7125458

work page arXiv 2015

[5] [5]

ZeroTouch Provisioning (ZTP) Model and Infrastructure Components for Multi-provider Cloud Services Provisioning,

Y. Demchenko et al., "ZeroTouch Provisioning (ZTP) Model and Infrastructure Components for Multi-provider Cloud Services Provisioning," 2016 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Cloud Engineering Workshop (IC2EW), Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 184-189, doi: 10.1109/IC2EW.2016.50

work page doi:10.1109/ic2ew.2016.50 2016

[6] [6]

Distributed AI in Zero-Touch Provisioning for Edge Networks: Challenges and Research Directions,

A. Hazra et al., "Distributed AI in Zero-Touch Provisioning for Edge Networks: Challenges and Research Directions," in Computer, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 69-78, March 2024, doi: 10.1109/MC.2023.3334913. keywords: Artificial intelligence

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Research on cloud security construction of power grid in smart era,

G. Feng, Q. Huang, Z. Deng, H. Zou and J. Zhang, "Research on cloud security construction of power grid in smart era," 2022 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Data Science and Computer Application (ICDSCA), Dalian, China, 2022, pp. 976-980, doi: 10.1109/ICDSCA56264.2022.9987863

work page arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Digital Twin Federation and Data Validation Method,

M. -S. Baek, "Digital Twin Federation and Data Validation Method," 2022 27th Asia Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC), Jeju Island, Korea, Republic of, 2022, pp. 445-446, doi: 10.1109/APCC55198.2022.9943622

work page arXiv 2022