Re: Working with IEEE 802

joel jaeggli <> Tue, 20 September 2016 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FC612B011; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJGUISkXdn8x; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3696126D74; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbp-2.local ([IPv6:2620:11a:c081:20:409d:71e9:c2a0:b4e0]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u8KNVI72070823 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:31:18 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [IPv6:2620:11a:c081:20:409d:71e9:c2a0:b4e0] claimed to be mbp-2.local
Subject: Re: Working with IEEE 802
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>, ietf <>
References: <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:31:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/49.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tFJTDmbfQBwaeiwWaBqgAed2M0uxQh9PT"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Chair <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:31:23 -0000

On 9/19/16 7:48 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> 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?
you should take a look at rfc 4052
> Best Regards
> AB
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, IETF Chair <
> <>> 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:
>     <>
>     Jari Arkko, IETF Chair