Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Here is my proposed text, in case you haven't used the link above yet:

...

    > If this is the recommendation that has consensus then I think this
    > definitely explains the intention more clearly, thank you.

I guess I need to wait a few days to hear back from the WG and other reviewers.
I should repost to [e-mail], which I'll do in a second.

    > That said, it seems to me to be akin to saying "don't use a CDN", or at
    > least don't use them the way most CDN services are configured.  I'm not
    > sure how this will be received by folks who should be reading and
    > considering these things.

    > Still, including it as RECOMMENDED seems fine to me.  It tells the
    > reader "here be dragons" and sets out the rationale.

Yes, the goal is to have some BCP that sets out some things that work better.
I did run this document by a few CDN people and they seemed okay.
Of course, things could get better, and we could revise the document.

Use a CDN if you need to, I think that there are some reasonable ways to do
configure things for it.
If this document helps CDNs and users of CDN align their offerings better,
than that's a good thing. In this case having an A/AAAA record that just
always has *all* the possible geolocation/tailored-response answers would
work really well.  Like:

all.upgrades.example.com -- all possible names (put into MUD file)
upgrades.examples.com    -- tailored response name (put into firmware)


--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [