Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 28 June 2020 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 0ED843A095C; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 uG10ByY0eKU9; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC3913A095B; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.41] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 05SFDJcR016136 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:13:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [10.32.60.41]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Rob Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:14:07 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <9407069F-19E1-4AC1-BE4D-B7D6F62CC34F@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/vCxtkNpAkHDwad0Zal72wGNP7Zg>
Subject: Re: [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 15:14:14 -0000

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:
    https://www.iab.org/liaisons/

> "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:
    https://www.iab.org/liaisons/

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