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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Sun, 18 December 2011 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEE411E808C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:41:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTLmhXQiYiLZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A370A11E807F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:41:51 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:41:52 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:41:51 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] FW: Liason statement from OMA CD WG to IETF - Mobile Social Networking
Thread-Index: Acy8iZk7F0JaJG4gTVmVDtFClyoZuwAOmlSgAB6d/1A=
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C155C9@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F2D32985@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20111216223107.09c637c8@resistor.net> <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718DE38025@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718DE38025@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: Liason statement from OMA CD WG to IETF - Mobile Social Networking
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:41:54 -0000

> -----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