Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work

Fred Baker <> Sun, 28 June 2020 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09003A0B92 for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id neH6cbJUveNN for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2550E3A07A8 for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f9so6570035pfn.0 for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=7GjYG4rpuBd6Jcu9xavhSKGi4w2gWOIU4iFdVZJ8LhU=; b=ui0WyLMP7pLkyo33pbcIjSMHm6ZdfI1oOKJVbEmeQiWTONj68NzxwQrwLraKgcEe6e P0iu35sisJBpfv5urdKgnlOmsf0WUE5wksehD3FXoi9T1AaLs/aMbCsCsSj9dKEDHQAb eYyCF2rLclswyzWVRciuIBh7e6FHY6EpokzK2G1+9yxLoz9yhu1grz2OKQPFEAcsJJ1L hlE2dVEvxjw4o0J+pOZOo9LaTjzF/KzKBbbUh3epK0RmsmWMoDZ10aIYAsNxfyuabv9z g5OKa8do1clrsV+Lb8dJ1I5D5QDpavXn/AwQ6qyTfSLd4Ev695qedn6axL9H1mZSUsnq zZmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=7GjYG4rpuBd6Jcu9xavhSKGi4w2gWOIU4iFdVZJ8LhU=; b=iZTGEelqeFvaAzJ1oK0HB8z79V2pwhpsTT+DDG2rex5Y706vxr4ItZRr3FM8/kbVNt m5f63nCSK8eWV12/FjzgbqUNoq7TNsPYiISkQks4lnMW8V9mWV3LDKC65wnNdZ9UntmW uEndOoOvr1nkaHKBiR9srTmULVnCf4y9JtB+HDzN7LoLxKG3iJO2QA6cr+ifyzIALgvg pKvdE/LDewke+r4MRh4jSl0QJCHN8622ypxQGMcLsglkvvPGo7A78ZlpQkBOX4jv92JB LoyoNJtcu4YXQn787GGGrjXmuk5s1CusGOUNP07kK6Z2bA7JbiHrzl0ZBob8XPWOpbRh H6cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O7cD4u7jzQQu/P0wCcQHTm/cc9JG44Hm1gf9IBsG24YYM/qqX hGX260whz+8fx7/vz0HOE5Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy12TRveqmX/OWMSnn5CKjPDCPZRcMmBxbr+Nfgo6C89EI65O/hC2lVO9XZFlThbG6eOVwGEg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7c8f:: with SMTP id x137mr9800630pfc.174.1593330208628; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5800:652::1004? ([2600:8802:5800:652::1004]) by with ESMTPSA id u13sm8371416pjy.40.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-73C050E9-0431-4751-8047-99AF2CCE8D0A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:26 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Rob Sayre <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17G5045c)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 07:43:31 -0000

Besides the fact that liaisons have been IAB territory for ages?

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 27, 2020, at 11:01 PM, Rob Sayre <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I had some questions about why the IETF might establish a formal liaison relationship with ETSI, and why that might appear in IAB minutes, rather than in the IETF/IESG. The document in question is here:
> "3. ETSI Liaison Work
> Zhenbin Li suggested that the IETF might want to consider trying to establish a formal liaison with ETSI, noting a concern that there might be overlap between work in the IETF TEAS WG and the ETSI Industry Specification Group on Zero touch network and Service Management (ZSM).
> ...
> Zhenbin Li agreed to follow up with Deborah Brungard and the Routing Area Directors about whether there is need for a formal liaison relationship with ETSI, and report back to the IAB."
> ETSI had been unfamiliar to me, but I recently reviewed an ETSI application for a TLS code point assignment:
> I was surprised that the IETF would entertain a 99-page PDF that no individual signed their name to, but I do agree that code point assignment is not meant to be a gatekeeping mechanism.
> I did more research into ETSI after that, and this article turned up:
> I would like to hear more from Zhenbin Li, Deborah Brungard, and the Routing Area Directors about this proposal.
> thanks,
> Rob