Re: [OPSAWG] The future of MUD work

["Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 1, 2019, at 18:09, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 5:44 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> OpsAWG members and our Ops ADs, it was discussed in opsawg at IETF 105 that with the amount of MUD work being proposed (and discussions happening outside of opsawg) that perhaps MUD should evolve into its own WG.  Some cons to this approached were discussed (maybe it would be too heavy-weight with a charter, milestones, etc.).  However, I wanted to take this conversation to the list so we can close on it publicly.
> 
> 
> I *personally* believe that a WG focused on MUD makes sense - I think
> that there are enough people interested in the topic, and enough work
> to make it worthwhile - this will allow us to corral the work into a
> single place and allow people interested in MUD to focus on that.
> Forming a short lived WG *should not* be a large undertaking -  Yes,
> it does require some process wonkery with charters and such, but we
> should be able to use the existing work as proof that there is
> interest, etc.
> If it turns out this is not enough work to justify an entire meeting
> slot, we can have a joint OpsAWG / MUD meeting (which I'll agree is
> only a marginal change from the current situation :-) ). If, on the
> other hand, there is sufficient work for a slot, it will free up time
> in OpsAWG and allow OpsAWG to work on other stuff.

Thanks, Warren.  Presented work aside, there is also a mud@ list, and Michael has posted some work in progress from him that would likely fit.  It could very well be that opsawg would become a MUD WG unless that work is spun out.

> 
> Note that these are my personal views - the MUD WG, if it were to be
> created, would presumably be on the Management side of Ops & Mgmt, and
> so Ignas will have to approve / make the decision.

This makes sense given what has already been ratified as well as the very strong tie to YANG in a lot of the current WIP.

Joe

> W
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>   ---maf