Re: Working with IEEE 802

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Tue, 20 September 2016 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD1A12B161; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 57SgeOn3TUwu; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 30B5312B498; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id l91so1773701qte.3; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=geSSvEeujKK9JlOXcxsF+Q6RliAvsLylI4KYTUqXrwI=; b=vtD8Xno96/T1CN6XyJwyHPqvdR+mH+tp4OIKaG99MeXYxJxSoc2/bz5TuUlvAXWu+R LeTLT55Rh1FRiS8XaDwi2ZDbG7qXhE5PBZW90+kowut3go6VZigrkQbxl4GwStYwb345 b2cIA4n44PgntvJk1/Q6nlSOEbKkgrcrnZe226cbV5lqbpbibNIKEg5RXRRsw3LgE7j6 DwiRZqc2W6/T4qytP4ZTRZS79kqjU/IpvBOXnhdGnF6wqcHDTGlj/o4MlguV5z+vh+Uc Qg0qnT1c66kIXRR919eO01tWnGR0uKqSxnmVjhCz98iVdfYTuif9mkWDPguO+BcLoPzW s5PA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=geSSvEeujKK9JlOXcxsF+Q6RliAvsLylI4KYTUqXrwI=; b=cpiNZhC3FvbcjPGjuw8n5Kl2P+YrI2Fq4oWCEKayzJWjRQnr/lTEnwyyt1aXNh6K9e 6zlZw5dpyiOQT5YhUpcP5Yg0PHHoj0D8+yFokellfeYD7x56Gx+nSlHxXzkHz1ZWwit7 gJ2Px5BkHK8DoQVuQAfFbtI5F7+PeRRsoywfrmL7Aw/8LVIuXFMrfNmRu0oIHyFzUCK6 UW9QCg01S5CxPiWLqO8JbumzslYYpPd19++oFb/eooxHt3NgLi0GZsb76hWVloJ3ZO8n rxE18UpQ79Z8KUzpdud/LIYnyjmDkKpnJDm4dCHL7jWALSXx8gO223/h4xYC/2IkNiME ohag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOuUbRTKjiAvvPcSeFU+mE/GxSSK7l7+bLtzf/cKoWN/qCWy9/KngMr91ncKLrjJD3tF9iMn6GOsDTKZQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.50.187 with SMTP id z56mr33625531qta.82.1474339694087; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.104.21 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 04:48:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ88y+GFa1qCctrS+KBgZ31KxWrKEq6Bpqd95zEkXy3tZXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Working with IEEE 802
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a1378be95c2053ce7754e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VVMff82D2-c72PSfppI6-BWL6KM>
Cc: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:48:20 -0000

This coordination issue with other organisations related to standards is
very important and affects pretty much our work, I suggest that the General
Area opens a WG for this important coordination, many information are
needed to be documented and focused on. IMHO, getting information about
contacts will help each IETF WG separately, but what about the decisions
for the whole IETF coordination with other SDOs especially when we get more
deep in future. Having contacts between managers in SDOs is good start but
usually in IETF our managers decisions reform after looking into the IETF
WG ideas and decisions. Therefore, my suggestion is opening a discussion of
why not future coordination through WG? or is it right time? or do we need
a new work-process?

I don't know the answers, does any one know?

Best Regards

AB

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> For your information, and keeping everyone aware that there’s quite a bit
> of coordination going on between the IETF and other standards
> organisations. Though of course the bulk of the work happens when our
> participants are simply doing the work, and taking care of things both in
> IETF and in other organisations.
>
> But in terms of coordination, a week ago with we met with folks from IEEE
> 802, for instance. The IETF and IEEE 802 leadership and liaison managers
> are in contact regularly, and every couple of years we also meet in person
> to better understand what work is happening on the other side, and make
> sure we stay coordinated. Last week, we held our fourth such meeting,
> continuing our tradition of meeting in outskirts of large airports in
> nondescript hotels :-)
>
> More information about current projects of common interest (Internet of
> Things, deterministic networking, privacy, and so on), how we coordinate,
> pointers to people to contact, etc. here:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/09/working-with-the-ieee/
>
> Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
>
>