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

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 10 April 2020 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A813A2092 for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0i8BqJNtR4A for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AA33A208E for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 03AAqeqI021651 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1586515975; x=1586602375;; bh=7ya9Ur0mPtqWA2nPslVCAi1mFHRCt+bftQbYvDOsbNE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=2/dBcMPwXvrAB7ha+Iv/Bd+TqgCfyf9z5xGpWJ/RjvzYfdKCNfk3mqGBowr4mg+Us JHMWiECLCH/qoO14labmmza8W+pL5GU87U6orVH5b+Iv223CPQakJzPC9N4y4emUAE 2EJrcfgl6dM8+WM3XLJ4yzcN01+fBM342gI0t24M=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:08:27 -0700
To: Toerless Eckert <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:53:16 -0000

Hi Toerless,
At 12:26 PM 09-04-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>Sure, its just my impression that the IETF WG and IRTG RG model
>works a lot better from where i stand than the IAB model.
>I also didn't mean adult supervision in itself as a negativ
>term, i am quite happy that overall it happens in a way it
>does from IESG to WGs. I am just saying that i wish that
>i do not see any benefits in how the IAB is run differently
>from that model.

I did not read your comment as negative.

There was this discussion on an IETF thread in which it was argued 
that an IETF WG was a SDO.  I wonder whether it was made for the sake 
of argument or because that is how the IETF model operates.  The IAB 
is an artefact.  In my opinion, and I could be wrong, the two are not 

It is the privilege of IAB members to determine how their committee 
should be run.  Whether I like or do not like does not make any 
difference to the state of affairs.

S. Moonesamy