|
Hi Rob- My perspective below- Thanks- Deborah From: Architecture-discuss <architecture-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Lizhenbin Hi Rob, Thank very much for paying attention to the work. Please refer to my reply inline identified by '[Robin]'. Best Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) 发件人:
ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 代表 Rob Sayre [sayrer@xxxxxxxxx] Hi, [Robin] Thanks Paul to propose the following link which explains why IAB discussed the work.
In addition, since there is no formal liaison between IETF and IAB and I work for the Liaison Oversight Program, I took the work to investigate the requirements for the liaison
with IETF.
[Robin] In fact the discussion for the liaison work is triggered by Daniele Ceccarelli (CCAMP WG Chair) this time. He asked if IETF needs to set up the liaison because of he
had seen requests coming from NFV, ZSM and the new working group on security (don't remember the name) in ETSI which has a very high overlap with what we're doing in TEAS, CCAMP, OPSAWG. After discussion in the IAB meeting, it is suggested to discuss with
Deborah and the routing ADs about the need. That is the reason why the RTG area is mentioned specially.
In the IAB meeting held on June 17, the need was discussed according to the feedback from Daniele Ceccarelli, Gonzalo Camarillo and Deborah Brungard and my collected information
on the organization of ETSI. It seems that there is no need from Routing for a formal liaison relationship with ETSI at the working level. And the IAB discussed that there seems not much need to set up the higher level liaison with ETSI temporarily.
I think your proposed reference is very helpful to understand more about the possible liaison work between ETSI and IETF. I will go on to collect these feedback and propose them
for IAB to evaluate. More suggestions on the work are welcome. [Deborah] For the routing area, TEAS had a request from ZSM on the status of some of TEAS documents. There have been no others. ETSI NFV, ETSI ZSM, TEAS are looking at similar applications – buzzwords
of the industry – SDN, NFV, network slicing, zero touch. As usual, different SDOs choose different paths on solution work e.g. ETSI NFV is concentrated on TOSCA. There are many SDOs overlapping in this space e.g. ONF is another one. What is different from
previous needed liaison activity when we did need a liaison manager at the working group level, for example, ITU-T SG15’s work on GMPLS and TMPLS, these groups are not modifying IETF routing area protocols. They may be choosing different ways to model e.g.
ETSI NFV MANO model for APIs. Similar to IETF’s approach to other SDOs, it really is not for IETF to say “choose our model/acronyms/solution” when not involving our protocols. Companies may not want the different paths on solution work, but as RFC4929 notes,
it is the expectation for the companies participating in these SDOs to contribute to that SDO, not the IETF liaison process to mandate (RFC4052). There are two aspects to the liaison process – the exchange of information on work, which can be done without a designated formal liaison manager, and the designation of a formal liaison
manager: https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/ Considering the routing area work at this time, I didn’t see that conditions warranted to recommend to the IAB that we needed to have formal liaison managers appointed to oversee ETSI ZSM
and ETSI NFV work. A formal liaison manager at the level of overall ETSI work, e.g. our 3GPP formal manager, Gonzalo, may be of interest but that would be for the IAB working with ETSI to determine if mutual interest as usually the partnering organization
also chooses a contact from their side. --- |
