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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,
At 12:56 PM 08-04-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>Alas, there is really no good investigative journalism
>in our field that would expose how this is e.g.: a fight
>for votes in next ITU-T round of decision making.

It is a cyclic event.

>The key word of my criticism is "only". None of
>what done in liaison is per-se bad, its just too
>isolated from the communities. But i am of course
>repeating just my core ask to have a more open
>architecture evolution forum in the IAB/IETF to
>be able to more effectiely pull in possible
>contributors from other SDOs.

My guess is that another SDO would have its own culture.

>Heck, think of a track where you start to inviting
>3GPP, ETSI, ITU-T and other SDO presenters, ask
>them to present what they do and their thoughts how
>it should impact the future of IETF work. And make
>sure the time planning allows double the amount of
>time for IETF participants to discuss. And hopefully
>help them to understand where/how that integration could
>be suggested/done via specific contributions to IETF.

Have you watched a presentation of IETF work in a non-IETF 
forum?  Sometimes, it is not an accurate reflection of the IETF discussions.

I'd say that the above suggestion is worth a try instead of viewing 
it through pessimistic lenses.

>(and be careful in selecting whom to invite so you do
>  not end up with administrative slide deck readers).

Yes.

>Indeed. The problem though is to figure out how to get to
>more effective forms of actual architecture/engineering
>process and not to better marketing mechanisms. Then again,
>given how ossified our industry is, there is unfortunately
>something to be said about scaring people to wake up, even
>though i do not like it.

I don't think that businesses would remain idle if there was an 
effective way to change things over the short term.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy