Re: ETSI Liaison Work

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Besides the fact that liaisons have been IAB territory for ages?

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 27, 2020, at 11:01 PM, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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