Re: [Madinas] Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section (fwd) "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)": Re: Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section

["Lee, Yiu" <[e-mail]>]

@Michael and Jerome: I chatted with few ISP (including my company) who offer services at home. One use case keeps popping up is how to build a trusted relationship with the RCM device in a simple WPA2/3 setup. In other words, is there a way when a RCM device attached to a network, it can notify the network I am a RCM device? If the network cares, the network can start authenticate me. It could be a simple DHCP option or something more sophisticated. This is needed in home network context to relax the requirement for every device to support Open Roaming or other means.

Thoughts?
Yiu

From: Madinas <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry=[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, November 7, 2022 at 08:24
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Madinas] Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section (fwd) "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)": Re: Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section

Hi Michael,

On the use case document, I propose to move section 7 to an annex, as it may be good material for the bcp, but likely does not need to be in the use case. From the feedback I heard, I also suggest removing section 6.3 (requirements formulation), this section was needed as we were discussing the group formation, but it does not seem to be useful anymore at this stage.

I am open to other suggestions. I will also gladly help on the bcp, if you need any.

Best

Jerome



From: Madinas <[e-mail]> on behalf of Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Madinas] Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section (fwd) "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)": Re: Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section
I found your email very difficult to read.  Please be aware that all
HTML is stripped out by the archive, so if you use HTML quoting, it's
just not gonna work.

I think that you wrote:

JC> Looking at the WG deliverables, I agree that the existing documents
JC> respond to the following two: An Informational use cases and
identity requirements
JC> document (draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-03) An Informational
JC> MAC Address Randomization current state-of-affairs
JC> document (draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-04)

JC> But we are still missing the third one:
JC> 2. Document Best Practices handling RCM
JC> A Best Current Practices document

I think that I am volunteering for this.

JC> There are some solutions mentioned in
draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-03, but these are not JC> sufficient for
a BCP. I guess for now these solutions should be moved to an annex and
JC> perhaps the doc should focus more on the “use cases and identity
requirements”

I think we need to restructure all the documents.

JC> I’m also in favour of doing some road-show to interact with other
groups (not sure if
JC> Cunningham's Law is the best strategy though).

for some readers: Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the
right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post
the wrong answer."

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 16:35, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> (chair hat off)
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Madinas <[e-mail]> on behalf of Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Date: Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 6:51 AM
> To: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Madinas] Comment #2 from MCR: creating a taxonomy section
>
>
> CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > I agree that having a taxonomy is useful. I just think we need some
>     > additional discussion on the mailing list to ensure that we cover what
>     > is expected and that we use the right terms.
>
> I agree with you.
>
>     > I'm going to accept your edits regarding this in the github and include
>     > the initial text in the next revision of the draft. We can take it from
>     > there.  Hopefully, we will get also input from other people in the WG,
>     > as this is a WG doc now.
>
> I have been thinking about the BCP document as well.
> I am very much unconvinced that the two documents that we have have the right
> split, and I think that this is why there is some difficulty connecting the
> taxonomy into the right place.
>
> It might be that list should go into the BCP document.
> I have also been considering starting that document.  I think that we need a
> bit of a road-show: where we go into other WGs and talk to them during their
> session.   This may call for an application of Cunningham's Law.
>
> Looking at the WG deliverables, I agree that the existing documents respond to the following two:
> An Informational use cases and identity requirements document (draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-03)
> An Informational MAC Address Randomization current state-of-affairs document (draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-04)
>
> But we are still missing the third one:
> 2. Document Best Practices handling RCM
> A Best Current Practices document
>
> There are some solutions mentioned in draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-03, but these are not sufficient for a BCP. I guess for now these solutions should be moved to an annex and perhaps the doc should focus more on the “use cases and identity requirements”
>
> I’m also in favour of doing some road-show to interact with other groups (not sure if Cunningham's Law is the best strategy though).
>
> Juan-Carlos
>
>
>
> Hmm. We should also present at RIPE somewhere, which is next week, and where
> I'm on my way to. Double Hmm.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>

--
Madinas mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/madinas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/madinas__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DKdHljj6MoDYa6vNdoldzjuGcfS2cF-EitSlU93yaE7Pi65wg93UvxaVNH7XK0jrXJs0L9qyXQwIA6OLIkL4LApQo___pNo$>