Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 28 June 2020 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04323A0F47 for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 jnVTKX2AI0VJ for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7BAC3A0F43 for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 67so2939778pfg.5 for <>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1711eR1reGu8+aP6C9snHHi5P2AL0q6RlIykhwerF44=; b=spDvE1CiiO/9sTJTOfb67zWIdQuEUPd15VCF699IY6RNPSmhnXbxxnrjdiwrG7TDHS zhXu39PYXCUXea12WlcJQUrVm74rKbJL7FuwDnTYg9SclcqhPOn1EljtG3R/2fsuPfQe c9aERWX270AIGKcYosqI2qhCzhBBkThtDoxL2NXuPGmtN51gMgc+/m2sBT4+HQqBUEHH hvMzR1ZEt4G7qzlUJf+vFtEKPwS9g1FdVAfXuLIMPp5dL8tAVegmj69C5gcYMgP4gqIV 0ZnjrU6GLa6g879IPNpBJhQ/vnL/9zAtiFFEG2QkSbEC2Zf1DfHnxjDjOJB4AKF9nzRt cWXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1711eR1reGu8+aP6C9snHHi5P2AL0q6RlIykhwerF44=; b=cDjOuFNYNhLESRx2tVW+88L21g9NoDzeYapUvCWnlh0UkpPvQQ8BlfwpQeEF18Z9lF a7rkU00qvm7b2vV4z958zwRpY9osqB26Le72WdJuEJcxbgP8TL12FbGrfcYlqaKI4ekc UnziC1J8zAVZeToSQwIo/EGNwCsNaVCBtkB37oK0oldSEttGYdYq2K4quKVA41i6wfAp 4dfJpxxygLId6fn+GjA6sWnB9oYWyU9Y0L7y238TPxnPE9aPGuAvUfIRW+LMtx16bNfT NIMhVRDJtK0pRGdLKC1SAruQO01ZAYEatkM2RJcDi+CGLKN6NpJLQ6J+soYrZKBimAAP 9vyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tocOZCGIAnBsdpieL+8Oap6eTMnJa8AaPA7kSZ+AYAomG0CQr 8H3FJV9Ty3qOqH/xjltLsTk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBD6LNtLGYS+7g0m0Q94AFhtStriJe2atHJvF1hut2XE9rMJICLYlQ7MjE54oWDOoqDASaqw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4f1b:: with SMTP id d27mr7443383pgb.389.1593378016192; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a16sm26651338pgj.27.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: Paul Hoffman <>, Rob Sayre <>
Cc:, IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:00:13 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work
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: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 21:00:19 -0000

On 29-Jun-20 03:14, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Rob Sayre wrote:
>> 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.
> A longer, hopefully more helpful, response to this part of the question 
> can be found at:

In fact, discussion between the IAB (on behalf of the IETF) and ETSI goes back at least to 1998 and there was a lot of collaboration over the years, either direct or through 3GPP.

Around 1998/1999, the IAB was reluctant to establish formal liaisons except with global-scope SDOs, and ETSI was still perceived then as regional (E = Europe), so we didn't. But that argument possibly doesn't apply today, and it seems reasonable for the IAB to discuss the question.

Liaison does not of course mean agreeing with what the other SDO does, but it does make review and comment of each others' work more prominent.


>> "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).
> Personally, I'm surprised that the IETF (through the IAB) does not have 
> a liaison agreement with ETSI. The external liaison list is at:
> Although there are always layer 8 and 9 reasons for having, or not 
> having, liaison agreements, ETSI's work often plays into IETF's work in 
> many different areas (I remember them from those always-entertaining 
> PKIX days).
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list