Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG adoption call on draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-03

Qin Wu <> Sat, 16 January 2021 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3283A16EA for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 03:30:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68Dnmk7sqg_N for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 03:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 583A93A16E8 for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 03:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DHwhP1sGRz67bml; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 19:25:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:30:42 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:30:42 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 19:30:36 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: opsawg <>, Michael Richardson <>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W09QU0FXR10g8J+UlCBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBjYWxsIG9uIGRyYWZ0LXJpY2hh?= =?utf-8?Q?rdson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-03?=
Thread-Index: Adbr+bJXSm3RYt/ZT+6yMcSnbKRXfA==
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 11:30:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WG_adoption_call_on_draft-richar?= =?utf-8?q?dson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-03?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 11:30:49 -0000

Hi, authors of draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls:
I have seen most of comments I raised earlier on have been addressed, e.g.,
1. provide recommendation to the implementers or developer on when they choose MUD URL updating and when they choose MUD file updating?
2.Clarify the difference between RFC8520 and draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls on MUD file signing
3.Add summary text at the beginning of the section 2
Thanks for that, it improve clarity and readability. I support adoption of this work

One more comment is Does MUD URL updating require any new protocol exchange between end device and firmware server, how does end device detect MUL URL change?

发件人: OPSAWG [] 代表 Henk Birkholz
发送时间: 2021年1月5日 2:06
收件人: opsawg <>
主题: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG adoption call on draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-03

Dear OPSAWG members,

this starts a call for Working Group Adoption on
ending on Monday, January 25.

As a reminder, this I-D describes ways to update (if possible) MUD URIs as specified in RFC8520 Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) in a secure and acceptable manner.

Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments you may have.

For the OPSAWG co-chairs,


OPSAWG mailing list