[arch-d] 答复: ETSI Liaison Work

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Mon, 29 June 2020 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEC73A08FE for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pveVjPINy5eY for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 23:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B813A08F9 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 23:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 75350D8103272FD6D128 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:53:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DGGEMM512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:53:43 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "architecture-discuss@iab.org" <architecture-discuss@iab.org>
Thread-Topic: ETSI Liaison Work
Thread-Index: AQHWTRGjUXGewUz24UmVNs9y8X6LVKjvGzE0
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:53:43 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937A0DCD@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937A0DCDdggemm512mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/EBzjzas_1MlOPSwP6Z-GFm_9McA>
Subject: [arch-d] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogRVRTSSBMaWFpc29uIFdvcms=?=
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: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:54:08 -0000

Hi Rob,

Thank very much for paying attention to the work. Please refer to my reply inline identified by '[Robin]'.

Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)

发件人: ietf [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Rob Sayre [sayrer@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2020年6月28日 14:00
收件人: IETF discussion list; architecture-discuss@iab.org
主题: ETSI Liaison Work


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."
[Robin] Thanks Paul to propose the following link which explains why IAB discussed the work.

In addition, since there is no formal liaison between IETF and IAB and I work for the Liaison Oversight Program, I took the work to investigate the requirements for the liaison with IETF.

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:

[Robin] In fact the discussion for the liaison work is triggered by Daniele Ceccarelli (CCAMP WG Chair) this time. He asked if IETF needs to set up the liaison because of he had seen requests coming from NFV, ZSM and the new working group on security (don't remember the name) in ETSI which has a very high overlap with what we're doing in TEAS, CCAMP, OPSAWG. After discussion in the IAB meeting, it is suggested to discuss with Deborah and the routing ADs about the need. That is the reason why the RTG area is mentioned specially.
In the IAB meeting held on June 17, the need was discussed according to the feedback from Daniele Ceccarelli, Gonzalo Camarillo and Deborah Brungard and my collected information on the organization of ETSI. It seems that there is no need from Routing for a formal liaison relationship with ETSI at the working level. And the IAB discussed that there seems not much need to set up the higher level liaison with ETSI temporarily.
I think your proposed reference is very helpful to understand more about the possible liaison work between ETSI and IETF. I will go on to collect these feedback and propose them for IAB to evaluate. More suggestions on the work are welcome.

I would like to hear more from Zhenbin Li, Deborah Brungard, and the Routing Area Directors about this proposal.