IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] The future of MUD work

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 July 2019 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 1CAD8120122; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 rVRNkNjO-mNc; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF7781200DE; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C733808A; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECF2C73; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:15:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D9AF7D6E-7434-4AE4-A2A5-26CD52C2FE20@cisco.com>
References: <D9AF7D6E-7434-4AE4-A2A5-26CD52C2FE20@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:15:41 -0400
Message-ID: <16016.1564445741@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/KYNRnQu8xqFwWxMyHE_TX_YroYY>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] The future of MUD work
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:15:47 -0000

Thank you for this thread.

Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Speaking as WG co-chair, I am happy to continue to support the MUD work
    > in opsawg, but I want to make sure the WG feels compelled to work on
    > it; and I want to make sure the full community that is interested in
    > MUD can follow and discuss items here.  That said, it was mentioned in
    > 105 that perhaps a bigger “on-boarding” set of work would be better
    > served in its own WG.  I think if the scope of MUD grows beyond the
    > definition and its extensions (as we’ve been seeing the work progress
    > thus far) it might be better served in its own WG space.

I think that MUD and MUD extensions is a pretty clear scope.
I think that the bigger on-boarding work is too nebulous to scope easily.

Perhaps a WG could be created with a name/scope like:
        Security Operations for Constrained Devices

(except that won't be a cool enough acronym)


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email