Re: [Mud] [OPSAWG] The future of MUD work

A new WG to focus on MUD sounds like a good idea. Several vendors and ISPs
offer security services to protect home networks, protecting IoT devices in
home networks is one of the key challenges, and MUD can help secure IoT
devices in both Enterprise and home networks and the security solutions in
both these networks are quite different.

Cheers,
-Tiru

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 14:15, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, it shouldn’t just be me.  It’d be a very small working
> group ;-) If others are interested, they should speak up.
>
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 11:09, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 29 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> OpsAWG members and our Ops ADs, it was discussed in opsawg at IETF 105
> that with the amount of MUD work being proposed (and discussions happening
> outside of opsawg) that perhaps MUD should evolve into its own WG.  Some
> cons to this approached were discussed (maybe it would be too heavy-weight
> with a charter, milestones, etc.).  However, I wanted to take this
> conversation to the list so we can close on it publicly.
>
> Speaking as WG co-chair, I am happy to continue to support the MUD work in
> opsawg, but I want to make sure the WG feels compelled to work on it; and I
> want to make sure the full community that is interested in MUD can follow
> and discuss items here.  That said, it was mentioned in 105 that perhaps a
> bigger “on-boarding” set of work would be better served in its own WG.  I
> think if the scope of MUD grows beyond the definition and its extensions
> (as we’ve been seeing the work progress thus far) it might be better served
> in its own WG space.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> I think it is probably time for at least one WG to spring from OPSAWG.  We
> didn’t really complete the agenda at the IETF, and a good reason of that
> was MUD.  There are at least four active drafts on that one subject, one of
> which we didn’t really talk about (bw-profile).  For me it’s a matter of
> what can reasonably be coded, tested, and be useful for manufacturers.  In
> as much as we can bring a bit more focus to manufacturers by offering them
> more of a venue for discussion, the additional WG would be welcome.  On the
> other hand, if we find that we’re not making progress, or if we progress
> extensions quickly, we can close the WG and continue the mailing list, and
> move back to OPSAWG.  I don’t see a MUD working group as a long term
> activity (famous last words), but targeted more at producing the necessary
> for broader adoption and then going out of business.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>