Subject: Re: [arch-d] Liaison reports (was: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11)

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:22:01 -0500

Hi, Mirja,

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:18 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hello Bob,
>
> Thanks for the proposal. I’ll check with the liaison shepherds and the
> rest of the IAB to make sure we have document the current practice
> correctly on this page and the IAB liaisons page.
>

Thanks for this, and thanks to SM for noticing.

My recollection, which is not recent, is that most of the liaison managers
don't do much, most of the time, *as long as things are going well. *There
are exceptions.

   - I was on the IAB from 2010-2013, and ITU-T liaison managers were so
   busy that we split off a separate IAB program for ITU-T so that we had time
   to pay attention to other SDOs.
   https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/concluded-programs/sdo-coordination-program/
   - IEEE 802 and IETF had a well-understood working relationship (
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4441) until enough people turned over
   that everyone forgot everything, and we had to repair the relationship with
   the first (and so far only) IAB Joint Activity (
   https://www.iab.org/activities/joint-activities/iab-ieee-coordination/),
   but most of that work doesn't flow through the formal liaison relationship
   - it's well-documented at
   https://www.iab.org/activities/joint-activities/iab-ieee-coordination/.
   - There is a 3GPP-IETF Coordination mailing list, with periodic
   meetings, but I'm not sure if that's publicly archived. That might be a
   candidate for a second IAB Joint Activity, with published minutes.

But as we often say, if it's critical to work with the IETF through the
formal liaison channels, that's not fast. I was told on a recent 3GPP SA2
teleconference that SA can't report out "3GPP requirements for IETF
protocols" until the SA2 study item ENDS.

Joint participation works best (and is more attractive now that most
organizations aren't traveling to physical meetings). The IAB Joint
Activities (formal and informal) seem to do a lot of heavy lifting. So I'm
not sure how critical "liaison manager reports" are supposed to be.

That's a good conversation for the IAB to think about, either as the IAB
itself, or in the IAB SDO Coordination Program (
https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iab-liaison-coordination-program/).

Do The Right Thing, of course :-)

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:34:12 -0500

Hi, Alexandre,

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:22 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Are these liaison reports specific to architecture?
>

I didn't see an answer to this (did I miss it?), but in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2850#section-2, the IAB has six
responsibilities, only one of which is architectural oversight.

"External liaison" is the sixth chartered responsibility.

   (f) External Liaison

   The IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the
   Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other
   organizations concerned with standards and other technical and
   organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet. Liaisons
   are kept as informal as possible and must be of demonstrable value in
   improving the quality of IETF specifications.  Individual members of
   the IETF are appointed as liaisons to other organizations by the IAB
   or IESG as appropriate.

So liaison manager reports aren't actually an architecture thing
(unless something is going wrong), but they are an IAB thing.

I should let current members of the IAB provide any followup, of
course. Things do change.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:27:29 +0200

Hi Alexandre,

Sorry it seems that I have missed your mail and thanks Spencer for chiming in!

I assume your question was aiming at the subquestion if the architecture-discuss list is the appropriate list to discuss this.

As this came up as a side point from anther discussion on that list, I kept the list in cc, so other people that have seen that question can also see my reply. 

The architecture-discuss list is further generally used for discussion about IAB activities related questions and multiple IAB members read this list frequently. However, people are of course also free to send any of these kind of requests directly to the IAB <[email-masked]>.

Mirja

> On 2. Jun 2020, at 17:34, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Alexandre, 
> 
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:22 AM Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I didn't see an answer to this (did I miss it?), but in  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2850#section-2, the IAB has six responsibilities, only one of which is architectural oversight. 
> 
> "External liaison" is the sixth chartered responsibility..
> 
>    (f) External Liaison
> 
> So liaison manager reports aren't actually an architecture thing (unless something is going wrong), but they are an IAB thing.
> 
> I should let current members of the IAB provide any followup, of course. Things do change. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Spencer
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss