Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Dear IESG and MUD Enthusiasts,

I'm working through your comments, turning them all into issues, but I want
to alert you that the -12/-13 diff includes a significant restructuring of
the document in order to bring the *BCP* nature of the document more clearly
to the front.  I've tried to socialize this change via hallway conversations.
This also means that some of your detailed comments have completely missed
the mark, and I won't be turning those into issues as I go through them.

There is no attempt in this document to standardize any *MUD
controller* aspects or protocols, but IoT vendors need a model against which
to determine what kind of DNS behaviour will work, and what will not.

That was stated in the abstract:

   This document details concerns about how Internet of Things (IoT) devices use IP
   addresses and DNS names.
   These concerns become acute as network operators begin deploying RFC 8520
   Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) definitions to control device
   access.

   Also, this document makes recommendations on when and how to use DNS names in MUD files.

I won't repeat this in each of the comments that I got, assuming everyone
might read this once.

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13&difftype=--html

Looks like this might also contain some xml2rfc version based changes, e.g.:
  as s3.amazonaws.com).  vs as "s3.example.com"


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*