IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Fri, 26 January 2018 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.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 0922A12E04A for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:05:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 UF6MKTWGmtYt for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:05:00 -0800 (PST)
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 8A31112D849 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:04:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=902; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516961099; x=1518170699; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RDensZDfaLPsHtGnfCXMfmGetsidjZ0BubVs4SSMfSk=; b=PP6Kx5SmfAZEdgMa1KqjQvJuA+30jk21PDHT5QeYfwHm3pWUMWqqPQGc hwZdGOu3g5F84XRsFt+lHHhJToMUqfusmiJ8fOWhBEbU/BjQ4BUVtpG6m MSEjVtH/k2Lyq0Uo7gU25hI1p1Tsc3WvS8oEq4bc9gmpSa1VZ269WygNL Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,415,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="1662297"
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-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jan 2018 10:04:57 +0000
Received: from [10.61.167.172] ([10.61.167.172]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0QA4vxA013717; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:04:57 GMT
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "Saswat Praharaj (saspraha)" <saspraha@cisco.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <151678258073.24096.1546664821566754428@ietfa.amsl.com> <74177d27-9a95-c791-db77-be5bafee957d@cisco.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A0C5FDD@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <f3706db8-1dcf-1efa-5f4b-746166ae97e4@cisco.com> <49328c0f-e97e-4631-d962-3fc37497200d@cisco.com> <421f7436-c0f7-f945-25e2-fdb22c71dfbd@cisco.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <c7193c44-b990-158c-96d2-55d0309d6bfe@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 05:05:05 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <421f7436-c0f7-f945-25e2-fdb22c71dfbd@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/DROXhmUNUWQA3RamEx8KswrAUIk>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt
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: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:05:06 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/24/18 06:24, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24.01.18 12:20, Joe Clarke wrote:
>> Is there a reason why they wouldn't be mandatory?  Seems like
>> these data would be readily available and having them would make
>> a number of use case cases possible.
> 
> Yes, there is.  If the MUD-URL is "burned in" via 802.1AR and the 
> software can be updated, then one oughtn't provide software
> information for the simple reason that it would be most likely
> wrong.  Hardware info?  Sure.  Software when using DHCP or LLDP?
> Sure.  But otherwise no.

Fair, but why not mandatory then for device-type, model-number, and
manuf-name?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQTMiWQHc8wChijkr7lvaI+K/hTPhwUCWmr9TwAKCRBvaI+K/hTP
h4UhAJ9C7cFxWuDxndYipyAFnunsWUrllQCfRhK/8Gnk4t7YMM26hCsxUCt3rVY=
=eEtq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email