IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 11:31 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 EC03A1200A4 for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:31:54 -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 0foSKnjTZ8WL for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB8212006B for <mud@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2845; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557833512; x=1559043112; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to: message-id; bh=qJ1ia+iTv9EqrQWCwTlZKu+YRc7bx56gBvMNgqFEnUU=; b=LVIrC+6gFdvAs9iHm1fWn0ZF+i2F3mr1ITWdj3oGPDXRM4ZFTuoHgCSd YCz8wfWMaHyuFmqxycNU/wqKSX8WcwTR7xaCXnrGsPs8Sd+sN+VN/OnyT L0KH6Y2tDkcttpOoiK/XrQFCDgSgkIAxm/KxjYcF9danG4akvUodOKrce g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D6AgDUpdpc/xbLJq1kHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBZYJ6USESKIQKB4h7i38lmGeBEANUAgcBAQEJAwEBGA0KAQGBS4J1AoI8OBMBAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAQEDASMrIQ8LCxgqAgIxFREOBwQBHASDAQGBew8PrXmBL4QyAYVwCgaBM4FPiheBf4E4DBOCTD6CYQICgSwBEgFsgj0yggQiBJMhlDgJgguCCYECgxaMPRuMLolAkwyLOYJ5AgQGBQIVgWYhNjBxMxoIGxU7KgGCQRMrgV0Xg0yKVT0DMAEPjg0PFwSCKAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,468,1549929600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="12077419"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 May 2019 11:31:50 +0000
Received: from [10.61.193.41] ([10.61.193.41]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4EBVnlS015916 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <mud@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:31:50 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FAE8FE3A-3301-4F23-B51C-44D8A3FBB2FC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:31:48 +0200
References: <17454.1557618668@localhost>
To: mud@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <17454.1557618668@localhost>
Message-Id: <DF4FB039-6373-4980-9E26-C66D454D11A0@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.193.41, [10.61.193.41]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/hrXTpgo4dlxsKnE-35PE_mejh5w>
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: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:31:55 -0000


> On 12 May 2019, at 01:51, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> {did the list transition go as intended?}
> 
> What should a MUD-manager do if a MUD file can no longer be found at the
> provided URL?   Perhaps this is equivalent to the signature not verifying.
> 
> I'm thinking specifically of a case where a device is initially created by a
> contractor, they dutifully create a MUD file, provide it to the customer to
> host, and then.. the customer forgets... marketing reorganizes the web site,
> etc.  and so the MUD file goes missing.
> 
> 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”.

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.

Eliot

> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mud-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mud-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to mud-discuss@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mud-discuss/17454.1557618668%40localhost.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email