Re: [Mud] what if MUD file is now longer available?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 03 June 2019 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0977312012C for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tec7cE2QyyJb for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97B06120046 for <mud@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2914; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1559551330; x=1560760930; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=AtKIuKxACWJba0Hl3OP3MqV3K2VxN1KxI64Ilz2E9EI=; b=VxWtEjFgI2cT6uTuguzII5NtFZHsmy8tL9jtSzFUT2yh3ywcf2uJFL1W YRi3F7vHidaT0FVV0Jn4gBb7RWv4uXHEVkr7qrtWigauGOiyuupyML6dz tL00uzbET8KQD4c/WnWkxonayAlz2Msgnf36CUzf6P61KatI3u+JmES+f 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BiAABp3PRc/xbLJq1mGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBZYNINyiEFIh7i3MlmHGBZwIHAQEBCQMBAS8BAYFLgnUCgzA4EwEDAQEEAQECAQRtKIVKAQEBAQIBI0wKBQsLGCoCAlcGE4MiAYF7D6kFgTGFR4RTEIE0gVCKIYF/gTgME4IeLj6EEQESAYMpMoIEIgSLMIhClQcJgg+CGIEGjWOCMRuMbooAoBqDBAIEBgUCFYFmIWdxMxoIGxVlAYJBPoFdF44iPQMwjwEPFwSCKAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,546,1549929600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="12685169"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Jun 2019 08:42:08 +0000
Received: from [10.61.228.92] ([10.61.228.92]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x538g7RC024294 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:42:08 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <C0D6CB77-DB28-4425-B5AD-8BEA70DC4813@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_423575AE-579E-41D3-ACE6-BE036DF198F7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:42:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5960.1558214710@localhost>
Cc: mud@ietf.org
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <17454.1557618668@localhost> <DF4FB039-6373-4980-9E26-C66D454D11A0@cisco.com> <5960.1558214710@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.228.92, [10.61.228.92]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/CT7eKIhgCoSWjq7n_rNt352rG7s>
Subject: Re: [Mud] what if MUD file is now longer available?
X-BeenThere: mud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Manufacturer Ussage Descriptions <mud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mud/>
List-Post: <mailto:mud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:42:13 -0000


> On 18 May 2019, at 23:25, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Section 13.2 says that the MUD-manager should cease processing at that point.
>>> I guess at that point, the access should therefore be default-deny.
>>> I guess the other question is what would the access be if there were no
>>> MUD URL at all.  We'd all like to be default-deny, but I think that during
>>> a transition period it can't be that.
> 
> 
>> If you ever had a valid MUD file you should keep using it.  This
>> follows the principle of least astonishment.  Otherwise, a temporary
>> outage might cause policy flaps.  An alternative might be to invoke an
>> exception flow that says, “yo! No more MUD file”.
> 
> Yes, I'm asking: what if the MUD-manager never got a valid MUD file.
> It did exist at some point, but then marketing moved it when they redid the
> web site, or the company just went under.

I think this ties to the draft we discussed putting together in Prague.  That is- a search path of sorts.

> 
>> A few things to think about with this use case.  We really don’t have
>> contact information in the MUD file.  While one might think that an
>> oversight, honestly I get a little nervous about sticking email
>> addresses in various places that can be harvested for SPAM.
> 
> The contact info does not have to be an email address.
> 
> It could point to quite a number of other things.
> There are some identities out there like 1id.com, Dun&Bradstreet numbers, RIR
> handles,  URLs, …
> 

True- in YANG terms this would be a CHOICE.  Let’s not go crazy with the # of choices, tho.

Eliot

> ...
> 
> Consider the opposite consideration: without a contact, one has no ability to
> find out who is liable.   That would be a relatively low-bar for an import
> regulation.  Every device gets a verifiable contact, or it does not get past
> customs.  The QR code on the case containing the MUD URL provides that.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>