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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

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 =-
>
>