Re: [apps-discuss] FW: Liason statement from OMA CD WG to IETF-Mobile Social Networking

Hi Murray, 

I believe the OMA just added the term "mobile" to social networking to
make it appear more relevant to their main constituency, i.e. vendors of
mobile phone equipment and cellular operators. So, I wouldn't give this
too much consideration.

Ciao
Hannes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:42 AM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: Liason statement from OMA CD WG to
> IETF- Mobile Social Networking
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:08 AM
> > To: ext SM; Likepeng
> > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: Liason statement from OMA CD WG to
> IETF - Mobile Social Networking
> >
> > The problem is that certain organizations do their work around high
> > level application concepts. Some of these concepts are contributed
by
> > innovation in the area of marketing. Examples: cloud computing,
> > machine-to-machine communication, smart grid, etc.
> >
> > Since the IETF follows a different approach for doing their work it
> is
> > difficult to map any of these concepts directly to IETF working
> groups.
> >
> > If one thinks about Mobile Social Networking then a number of IETF
> > technologies come to my mind that could be relevant, such as HTTP,
> TLS,
> > OAuth.
> 
> I am fairly certain that the "Social Networking" part of this either
(a)
> falls squarely within the Applications Area, or (b) falls clearly
> outside of the IETF altogether.  It depends on which aspect of it
we're
> discussing.
> 
> The "Mobile" part is less obvious.  Depending on what we're talking
> about, that can spread across several areas (SEC, RAI and RTG come to
> mind), or might be the realm of the GSMA and OMA.
> 
> For the specific details of this request, I suspect APPSAWG was the
> wrong recipient.  The specific I-D they named is not currently an
> APPSAWG item and there's no guarantee it will be, and most of the
other
> topics listed are things I haven't heard discussed anywhere at IETF
yet.
> 
> I imagine the OMA Liaison (i.e., me) and the Applications Area ADs
> would be the right place to start to form a response.  Other ADs might
> also need to be tapped.  I'll get that ball rolling shortly.
> 
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss