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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 03:40:09PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
> > 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.

Sure. But i was talking about reaching out to contributors,
not SDOs as an organization.  There are a limite amount of
individuals working across multipiple SDO including IETF.
But i suspect that there are more contributors that
wouldn't dare to go out of their comfort zone without being 
invited. Of course, there is a large amount of SDO participation
that is just doing work within a narrowly defined scope of
operations by their sponsor, those typically would not be
of interest. 

> > 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.

If all you have is a liaison statement you will
always wander on thin ice attempting to extrapolate
the meaning between the lines / discussion.  Goes both ways.

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

? Sorry, to much thread cutting... which suggestion ?

> > 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.

As said in the othre thread, i don't think in an industry as 
mature as ours and as capital intensive, that there is
a lot you can change short term and from a single player.
Hence the need IMHO for IETF to have to rethink to promote
and support more poactive longer term architiecture discussions.
(and if you don't like the word architecture, use design, strategy,...)

Cheers
    Toerless

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
---
[e-mail]