Re: [arch-d] Liaison reports (was: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Tue, 02 June 2020 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9423A092A for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CtsWqX5cr2_x for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119933A09AB for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c21so6417946lfb.3 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f97JLAthysV9lkM7dixA0UY6TLhXX3y1fvL2ifnplYg=; b=Lta/EDYYrqtzuTQ9I481NAoEHlNwLyRrzOh+9kuYgNClT6CzmwX1jBt2sBqUNGguLj F64URKxg8/DHdxzkAMw5unJn+QvmKWF18zhu7s1HSdmlz/FuYGVqoot3ZYjm/aUVeqow CdhuqP2QaFwrOfXohBKBnhq0NhfR1PXmAOF+d+lTgknQWO2HIC49H7PdoJbplubeUxyI ciscqasZO3SY4qcULHU7TeliinVx4Ewmf/lin75+2D+8VgyGV5502FjDzP71N5SIktQM v/pwEvT4KVK/jUVfnyrpTJNzaSAH7ic3lYBAfCTHdL3Oz2yVWGj/YN4EHdsiBK71iXFX /hKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f97JLAthysV9lkM7dixA0UY6TLhXX3y1fvL2ifnplYg=; b=BlRx89/9s4BFRvztPQlRoj+0ov+XI+IIkzXDkk8BH3qoC/1tjMWr5WDCwbSPcnVSuQ 4RppdtJsFhizeo3TZA87NaQ3jRvwuUKYFOnl4Wzqdv6r2fQV9yugDTcaSLPhhRE5Pwf7 quHpfNWGEBZlyAU7YCE8YxIn6qwugBkXH6IsCEe0DTLwQU5CZ+DF9XWk7Hi3omnvBG3q Sfo9ruE4mTHLdbLqzY9spSsuZUglu5Jx57yO7ecjgKu2FfaG4vNrD5xryt0euJ6mEd7F TId6aNpHBtsNX1whqFgAyJt0f34IYC6NTl+ZjpHrPAmCeUmXgiTZj3Dn99jjBymUS51D o8sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XRR1XsmhAyZXAfK+WnOL7ZpjIL4YzgYjVhbiW7dlkX9rtyVpk rgg/203ExgstCMvczg5HNwboY1sxblVJdB0HknI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6QNflTieR+5LZnQIughJgEglNkwUuvtXa3Ox9i4R5ORxPXMk1ket2oOnTO+mBqnFwX3XgsNNilYqc7G8Heww=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:550e:: with SMTP id n14mr14432390lfe.81.1591111347241; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:22:01 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, S Moonesamy <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6892f05a71b7ac8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Liaison reports (was: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:22:36 -0000

Hi, Mirja,

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:18 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <>

> Hello Bob,
> Thanks for the proposal. I’ll check with the liaison shepherds and the
> rest of the IAB to make sure we have document the current practice
> correctly on this page and the IAB liaisons page.

Thanks for this, and thanks to SM for noticing.

My recollection, which is not recent, is that most of the liaison managers
don't do much, most of the time, *as long as things are going well. *There
are exceptions.

   - I was on the IAB from 2010-2013, and ITU-T liaison managers were so
   busy that we split off a separate IAB program for ITU-T so that we had time
   to pay attention to other SDOs.
   - IEEE 802 and IETF had a well-understood working relationship ( until enough people turned over
   that everyone forgot everything, and we had to repair the relationship with
   the first (and so far only) IAB Joint Activity (,
   but most of that work doesn't flow through the formal liaison relationship
   - it's well-documented at
   - There is a 3GPP-IETF Coordination mailing list, with periodic
   meetings, but I'm not sure if that's publicly archived. That might be a
   candidate for a second IAB Joint Activity, with published minutes.

But as we often say, if it's critical to work with the IETF through the
formal liaison channels, that's not fast. I was told on a recent 3GPP SA2
teleconference that SA can't report out "3GPP requirements for IETF
protocols" until the SA2 study item ENDS.

Joint participation works best (and is more attractive now that most
organizations aren't traveling to physical meetings). The IAB Joint
Activities (formal and informal) seem to do a lot of heavy lifting. So I'm
not sure how critical "liaison manager reports" are supposed to be.

That's a good conversation for the IAB to think about, either as the IAB
itself, or in the IAB SDO Coordination Program (

Do The Right Thing, of course :-)