Re: [OPSAWG] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 19 April 2018 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F56212D86E; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 YxFmtJTIMJ6T; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072AD120227; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w3JFpOnp081091 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:51:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud@ietf.org, Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
References: <152411619849.28688.7728428588690184834.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3b3a9137-ad74-6516-ec26-760b41078d50@cisco.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <50453d3a-5bd7-5c28-d37b-efd76709fb4b@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:51:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3b3a9137-ad74-6516-ec26-760b41078d50@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/-ocQHkKc-3EAasCS0rYjLVadXGU>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:51:34 -0000

On 4/19/18 04:39, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think this is definitional.  The idea in the preceding text really is
> that once the vendor sets this, they really have no intention of
> updating even CERT-based issues.  This is another instance where
> operational experience could provide us guidance between MAY and SHOULD.


My experience includes situations such as Microsoft officially 
discontinuing support of Windows XP in 2014, and yet releasing a 
security patch for it last year. While this is exceptional, it's not 
unheard of. If you want to define "support" to mean something in this 
document other than the way major vendors do, I suggest including a 
clear definition in this document, as readers are likely to make the 
same inferences as I did.

/a