Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 28 June 2020 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09003A0B92 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id neH6cbJUveNN for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2550E3A07A8 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id f9so6570035pfn.0 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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 smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u13sm8371416pjy.40.2020.06.28.00.43.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com>
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: <89DB0039-690F-4486-8752-CE40AFF146C4@gmail.com>
References: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17G5045c)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/8hKTvLf9nKuCXoVkyoD_is5hlwo>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <sayrer@gmail.com> 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:
> 
> https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2020/iab-minutes-2020-05-27/
> 
> "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:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/bkx_bXcPSt_TwE7iJRM9acOQkDA/
> 
> 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:
> 
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/ets-isnt-tls-and-you-shouldnt-use-it
> 
> I would like to hear more from Zhenbin Li, Deborah Brungard, and the Routing Area Directors about this proposal.
> 
> thanks,
> Rob