IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 16 March 2021 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 728C33A0B8D; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 Fv0Zh1_0h0SW; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E950D3A0B83; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9EA389A6; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:22:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hOs3nIXpUwnU; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E780D389A4; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B475D5; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:16:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <366a510ca7b4412892eac3c9dba81337@huawei.com>
References: <240866a424caca4cf10e5df833533ffe.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org> <2a12c6bcb4bbbde5e4f046a9763272be.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org> <366a510ca7b4412892eac3c9dba81337@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:16:38 -0400
Message-ID: <20640.1615925798@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/R0JWNiOrNc0StcMtjojVB04WFH8>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode]
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, 16 Mar 2021 20:16:45 -0000

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
    > IMO, whether to apply ISE or WG adoption depends on the authors themselves.
    > If I recall right, we did not get the adoption request from the
    > authors.

I actually did post back in 2020
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/w22FWi_D5586H_LK2UXtzXLhx88/

I got very little interest at all.

The document was then simplified, all the DPP integration was removed, and I
approached the Return Logistics Association (RLA.org) for a code that would
integrate into their system.

I think that the OPSAWG has very little available bandwidth for MUD related
things, and the mud-qrcode document is not where I would want to spend the
limited bandwidth of OPSAWG, since I think that there is very little for the
WG.   But, if the WG wants it, that's fine with me.

RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
    > In my opinion, work that is in scope for an existing working group must
    > first be offered to that working group. If the working group has no
    > interest in pursuing it, that is OK and it can be brought to the
    > Independent Stream provided it does not conflict with ongoing work in the
    > working group.

    > Of course, I can form my own opinion on whether there is interest in the
    > working group, and I can make my own judgement about conflict, but it is
    > helpful if the working group chairs can give advice because they should
    > have a better understanding of what the working group thinks.

Unlike my other two MUD related documents, this document does not make any
changes at all to RFC8520.

The mud-acceptable-urls document an Update (Amends), for RFC8520, and needs
WG review.
The mud-iot-dns-considerations document is a BCP, and it is getting
cross-area review (and a dnsop presentation last week), and I have a number
of issues to deal with.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email