[arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sun, 28 June 2020 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@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 8CC273A0B84 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Orbd8YCPiScU for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C673A0039 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id q8so13910437iow.7 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pphyk3DxPKmV1Lt7nluEue/4L+eGJgODfz/NeVCVRao=; b=kCZgyp8nQnmjYf+kr3D0qeqHTtN3w5YjN8R5EhAOBJ/rpm/CUp4iLN+NB4pdDz+ME8 r3zxRjKst43ZH7P46PGZaeZQjrcINhIQjtUbQRbNtxqYrwhDpk8UP4GeSO4KVrBniHJi ftu5qSTT0pP3XX8DhA1495Y847j/CJTlqH/iqAVFZygHGikfgFVFGwbxp/h01mI4i0FZ UAFmCO88mYpME2WPxHndP6gKIhCJ+TQDEdHMxFRx9I4QpqyejshprGaZEXnUMTMLs0pN dh0PIt923P+3jxazbM8YmLC0VkWB2RDUBCLEy9g+2qcdo5pIcIEe9EV6BXz1mTfkGv0t dAwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pphyk3DxPKmV1Lt7nluEue/4L+eGJgODfz/NeVCVRao=; b=n6C2RT52IseU0CRfq9ITrEjP3BVvn79l7a0I7CnealnzWgjB9+Tfbf1elo8dGCQ4s8 Q9fSG20jZUjbJPrwPcxlaa2+nUJARpREgnxaKRu+otTIJ03dJkJUjIitNnMy9p6E5vp2 a2LD4CEQmYVIQ6nkTiTi/YM4yvEgf3hK/YOCt822NRK4iEtJRc1EPPfLpLmIPOmby8Hl SKiMXk+CvyPcROhfaXFc2MAG405md5l0bOpoaLYijidQeGDnDuBsdWB/dXEN9cGkTQX0 80IsJ8k9EsZeYV85lznHKfrUpSt8ykjP894Q+QTYfeLwl2SJkewJhrOygtbGvWnFGqA/ hVLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tGdht1zb+BugcGfWQFWLyVEJSHZde39gkQ2zMGOQYBErTyhed mx/L7PxY20MkZEBb4muZ0lrdTMLjWK7sIJOH9Ws=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz6Eg+I7OVUaWFF/0aLbAyPLHWEiSKa8tb7WnX17Pnsh14jT9pxwJXIWSOONRBeNajOmOjD67Anpaxia8rjz3I=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:7818:: with SMTP id p24mr12027288jac.131.1593324053665; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:00:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b1b8305a91eaa5e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mevZi3P1QGse9gxW0LZZtO4lhFc>
Subject: [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: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 06:00:58 -0000

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.

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