Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services

For what it's worth,

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:23 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 10:28 -0700 Bob Hinden
> <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> >> On Apr 7, 2020, at 9:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> >> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> All our troubles will soon be over, apparently:
> >>
> >> https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/press-releases/1749-2020-04-ets
> >> i-launches-new-group-on-non-ip-networking-addressing-5g-new-s
> >> ervices
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Seems to me that an application designer has a big choice
> > here.  They can design their application/service so it works
> > over the Internet (with a mix of L2 technologies that includes
> > 5G), or with this over 5G only with what is apparently being
> > proposed here.
> >
> > IMHO, this is going to be a simple choice for most.
>
> Right.  And that suggests one constructive thing that could be
> said to them (both the ETSI and ITU-T efforts, as Carsten points
> out) that is not covered by Alissa's (otherwise quite good, IMO)
> note.  The letter, at least as I understood it, focused on the
> "above IP" ("above waist of hourglass") solutions with which the
> IETF has traditionally worked.  I don't know nearly enough to
> have a competent opinion about whether it would help with the
> problems they are pointing at, but we have a long history of
> IP-over-foo protocols that are specific to particular physical
> or link layers.  I assume that, if they wanted to design a
> specific IP-over-5G protocol (completely in line with _their_
> layering model, which Alissa was too polite to point out), that
> the IETF would be delighted to have them do that.  They might
> even discover, as some other developers of IP-over-foo protocols
> have, that they gain insights into the lower-layer design of 5G
> itself that enable them to make improvements.
>

THIS.

I've deleted multiple replies in this thread, but I'd really like to see
that mentioned in a liaison response ... pointed somewhere.

I don't see ETSI listed as a formal liaison at
https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/, but note that (1) ETSI is one of the
"partners" in 3GPP, (2) 3GPP has many thoughts about 5G, which might or
might not map onto this ETSI project, and (3) Gonzalo Camarillo is still
listed as the IETF's liaison manager to 3GPP, which seems like an excellent
resource we might want to involve.

Perhaps that's (also?) a fruitful place to engage on this topic.

Best,

Spencer

> Otherwise, in addition to your observation about application
> designers (with which I agree unless those designers have their
> development costs unwritten by ETSI, ITU-T, or their members)
> this feels a lot like "every decade or so we need to revisit
> either OSI or its layer-less predecessors because we aren't good
> at learning (perhaps because of those strange-looking bells
> stuck over our heads)".   If so, we should probably encourage
> them to charge ahead and let us know how it works out for them
> :-(
>
> Mumble.
>    john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>