Re: [OPSAWG] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 12 April 2018 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@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 1AC10126E01; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-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 XuQpaId8hnZ2; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80D9126C19; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3198; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1523535439; x=1524745039; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=qZgl7We38J+4DwMxKha60NWxRgXj28TQB2TsUo5cOwA=; b=USMdnC/pykgCQrgQ2UyUsZJTlD+SZWVPdDQQ008iz/UQwWUsrNXLoVlc USb/x2Dm/4l+HaLgpog1n7a6iabTsirHjsHNq1+5LtV+7AOJyHYYdgNA/ qhnEvum3WNB0YwUTSHs+lqhh8wDfX6XzGSIeoFriPlofVWU6OzPpWl+LI Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ATBAA7Tc9a/xbLJq0ZAUIZAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgxOBf4QLiGCOBCGBD418hmILhQMCgkA3FQECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAmwohSMBBSNWEAsECgoqAgJXBgEMCAEBhQmKdJxnghwfiCGCL4oQgTIMgly?= =?us-ascii?q?Hc4JUApddCI4xBodEhQCQEoElMiKBUjMaCBsVOoJEghqONT2PMQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,441,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="3149444"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Apr 2018 12:17:17 +0000
Received: from [10.61.232.123] ([10.61.232.123]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w3CCHGSc015597; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:17:16 GMT
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud.all@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <152329667548.30723.13155842895888603902@ietfa.amsl.com> <10591659-b464-ad66-a499-6567202cc782@cisco.com> <efb9927a-a0af-9578-096f-e5185316aa4f@nostrum.com> <b18d6e8f-7b31-158a-d4e8-e1e834211025@cisco.com> <8cbc1f68-488b-ac57-91c1-2a95a6446129@nostrum.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=lear@cisco.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFMe1UQBCADdYOS5APDpIpF2ohAxB+nxg1GpAYr8iKwGIb86Wp9NkK5+QwbW9H035clT lpVLciExtN8E3MCTPOIm7aITPlruixAVwlBY3g7U9eRppSw9O2H/7bie2GOnYxqmsw4v1yNZ 9NcMLlD8raY0UcQ5r698c8JD4xUTLqybZXaK2sPeJkxzT+IwupRSQ+vXEvFFGhERQ88zo5Ca Sa1Gw/Rv54oH0Dq2XYkO41rhxQ60BKZLZuQK1d9+1y3I+An3AJeD3AA31fJZD3H8YRKOBgqe ILPILbw1mM7gCtCjfvFCt6AFCwEsjITGx55ceoQ+t5B5XGYJEppMWsIFrwZsfbL+gP31ABEB AAHNJUVsaW90IExlYXIgPGxlYXJAb2Zjb3Vyc2VpbXJpZ2h0LmNvbT7CwHsEEwECACUCGwMG CwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheABQJTHtXCAhkBAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozBNoH/j0Mdnyg CgNNmI4DyL9mGfTJ/+XiTxWXMK4TTszwwn/tsXjyPQWjoO6nYqz5i96ItmSpkelSGVpzU+LK LQxSjFeUvKw23bp1rVecfGR+OENSE1m6KfFj3vtzQOZ2/FgK210MWnlYNNyAHX6Pf6hKInTP v6LbZiAQMCmf0aPvRbk/aPSNJAuIKrLrrCgAlwelrTavFsSwnKI3dhSG8DJ9+z/uiXDiHYra Ub3BKp5K/x71Zd8hUsWm2simnE/6HvZaZz7CC29JSZ/5gGtNB3OMNKLzLWUbQacF3IKxpW66 ZFYFYnlBV4jRnKlmb40YcEXWVJkkVC8g+/J9Qo6R8BdmSTXOwE0EUx7VRAEIALRZXth1u/3n FgY+G2FN0KEEik+2Xsk8JX9zr/eISa+Ol8a4U1orgxpyP2V7bQQDkDUEfs+Asagc6I8zrk3K xGln3pFFVfdM18uaEYwWvmE84Y12r7FwYdW62bA9X1Ttsp5Q1GI8XHdh0SQTF12pXYTwWW1P THYVIp7bGzM88cHqBW0xyRflu4j2nUrd9tWFd28SRxhj+MHQkQkbKFLloRty3lwdS8MCRPzX 9gUrkl+DxFHC7WrW3Vi4glI5YBlD0n2hSyDoP1GkKVT60gUGh7eJOnUBR8lzKm5wYqAtgq2m 79rKBylA40diRhbnTTeY+ytqMWFF5UXm97Jwxsezi7kAEQEAAcLAXwQYAQIACQUCUx7VRAIb DAAKCRCHtmtG2dJ6M5K5CADbunatgHsqHbR3KbpXxzralakEcdODGv/fbN6/EdKJeXrG9QKD lPxZTB9STw6+ANwESsr9uUMAxdDNKDeynjnQmFHxGdcdcXlnPZPThfseeUhUkbB/YKOfDIQA kKozNoKYj6Dcia+D/wvifIEW+GUUcO/6Qi8yK6PLJyM8C7vHEqmUGzX8gTCYOgAyOd4WZrC9 95CfB0yFIorw+MpK7MZTm5SbGPcYF9Gq9MzSqmaEw8U6YOElKYfnkcsCTLYyWaolhck+3/0R 9ISEWK5rUzqAuK40S4+Sn7yNycdCoqvQh4e3xSpzAu3aYZ8jKXQVV0X2G9Y+M1HMZuCqhPUO LTdF
Message-ID: <0ddeece0-f47a-9582-c875-da09d9762d5d@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:17:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8cbc1f68-488b-ac57-91c1-2a95a6446129@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------597152BDA236C7FC6C5628D2"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/HIrMrpAWpRSQf4sWVFFw_eOz-0I>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20
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, 12 Apr 2018 12:17:21 -0000

Hi Robert and everyone else,

Circling for a landing here...


On 11.04.18 18:15, Robert Sparks wrote:
> With this, I'm puzzled about the use of the word standardized at all.
> I think I'm hearing that you expect MUD controllers to know about some
> well-known classes by convention and that groups like fairhair or
> someone else might make a list of classes that MUD controllers might
> collectively decide to build in knowledge of. Am I getting closer to
> the right picture? (This is opposed to a set of classes that are
> created by a standards action and listed in a registry somewhere).

I've attempted to clarify this language as we discussed.  On the point
of standardization, I've made a clean separation:

  * URNs: standardized (and therefore hopefully well documented)
    behaviors, such as DNS and NTP.
  * URIs that take the form of URLs.  These are just class names that
    the administrator has to fill out, or are otherwise somehow
    pre-populated.

I hope that this resolves any lingering confusion.

Thanks again for working to improve this document.  I really appreciate it!

Eliot