Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 17 July 2020 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 606B83A081B for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 qn68KG54rYou for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DAF3A0814 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 06HDFE9f030394 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:14 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CCC49205C3E for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3421205BC9 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.240.207] ([10.11.240.207]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 06HDFESs032755 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:14 +0200
To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4551d406-cb86-c8da-c596-76a7efe2c15e@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/PXMeKq5Px--pbTdZl6AqMH_xyHo>
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: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:15:18 -0000


Le 28/06/2020 à 08:00, Rob Sayre a écrit :
> 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.

In the IPWAVE WG about vehicular networks (automobiles, trucks, others)
there is relationship to ETSI TC ITS 'Intelligent Transport Systems'.
Some of the ETSI's documents were referred to by several Internet Drafts
in that WG.  A person attending both helped a lot pursuing through the
relationship.

In the 6MAN WG about IPv6 maintenance there are participants to the ETSI
ISG IP6, an Industry Study Group on the topic of IPv6 Integration.

It might be that a unique liaison to ETSI might need to broadly cover
several WGs at IETF, or otherwise be narrower to a particular WG.

Alex

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________ Architecture-discuss
> mailing list Architecture-discuss@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>