On 29-Jun-20 03:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: > 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/ In fact, discussion between the IAB (on behalf of the IETF) and ETSI goes back at least to 1998 and there was a lot of collaboration over the years, either direct or through 3GPP. Around 1998/1999, the IAB was reluctant to establish formal liaisons except with global-scope SDOs, and ETSI was still perceived then as regional (E = Europe), so we didn't. But that argument possibly doesn't apply today, and it seems reasonable for the IAB to discuss the question. Liaison does not of course mean agreeing with what the other SDO does, but it does make review and comment of each others' work more prominent. Regards Brian > >> "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 > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture-discuss mailing list > Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss >
