Re: [Mud] Different ways of declaring MUD URLs
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 23 August 2019 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 B8338120046 for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NXEFFb6y8Q7m for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFE98120074 for <mud@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [142.169.78.41]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBC7A1F45E; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:08:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C2B7A3FB5; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:08:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com>
cc: mud@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CAHiu4JNovJf4JkGRQziXLV=C3FD9ahNTB5Ryg2ZX7HYQonMe6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHiu4JNovJf4JkGRQziXLV=C3FD9ahNTB5Ryg2ZX7HYQonMe6A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com> message dated "Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:21:31 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:08:48 -0400
Message-ID: <19984.1566572928@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/IwNLsbkzfOs1eVh_pAIvhswPvSM>
Subject: Re: [Mud] Different ways of declaring MUD URLs
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:08:28 -0000
M. Ranganathan <mranga@gmail.com> wrote: > The MUD spec discusses three ways in which a device may declare its MUD URL: > - LLDP > - 802.1AR certificate based. > - DHCP > What if there is a conflict? Should the MUD server keep the first association > or last? You mean, what if they don't point to the same URL? If so, I'd put the device into qurarantine immediately, as something is amiss. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [Mud] Different ways of declaring MUD URLs M. Ranganathan
- Re: [Mud] Different ways of declaring MUD URLs Michael Richardson