IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode]

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Mon, 22 March 2021 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.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 ACF723A0E1F; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 uULCuE4eROK6; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB4F13A0E27; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4F3bW94KSTz67nG6; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:49:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 01:56:20 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:56:18 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:56:18 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "iotops@ietf.org" <iotops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode]
Thread-Index: AQHXGYS//PV4bVoSJEmt7+jfnmRrpqqGLv7wgABaZgCAANpc4IAFePaAgAJZvsA=
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:56:18 +0000
Message-ID: <d32693c7b55b44b4918b52d207bfc89f@huawei.com>
References: <240866a424caca4cf10e5df833533ffe.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org> <2a12c6bcb4bbbde5e4f046a9763272be.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org> <366a510ca7b4412892eac3c9dba81337@huawei.com> <20640.1615925798@localhost> <e918dace64264028b2dcc6194d219a26@huawei.com> <13989.1616273545@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <13989.1616273545@localhost>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.128]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A3PRClDdb6OWhOKJdCFW9qcftXM>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode]
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:56:30 -0000

Hi Michael,

Sorry for not being clear.
My statement is on the following context from your previous mail.
"I got very little interest at all."
And
"I think that the OPSAWG has very little available bandwidth for MUD related things, and the mud-qrcode document is not where I would want to spend the limited bandwidth of OPSAWG, since I think that there is very little for the WG"

So my preliminary suggestion is
"I think it would be a good idea to collect more interest in IOTOPS, and bring to OPSAWG."

The chairs will discuss more about the next.

Cheers,
Tianran

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:52 AM
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org; opsawg-chairs@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; iotops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode]


Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
    > Now we have IOTOPS for more bandwidth to discussion on MUD.
    > I think it would be a good idea to collect more interest in IOTOPS, and bring to OPSAWG.

I'm rather mystified by the meaning of this statement.
As WG chairs you are empowered to use your judgement, and you can run any process you like to decide whether to adopt work, including, I like to remind, doing it by fiat.  The "two week adoption call" is just a common process.

So, clearly you are suggesting some other process.
Perhaps you could explain to me what process you have envisioned here so that I can follow it?

---

To those in the WGs, perhaps you could read:
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-mud-qrcode/

Editorial changes most welcome at https://github.com/CIRALabs/securehomegateway-mud/tree/ietf

I should note that there is almost no content in this document which the IETF will have change control on. (I say almost, because I could say none, but I might be wrong)

This is an application of a Reverse Logistics Association profile of the
MH10.8.2 Committee QR code control protocol to include an RFC8520 entry.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email