IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 16 March 2021 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 E1E0B3A0CD2; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 dli4BN3oXDdY; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6A233A0CCC; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3346; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1615926541; x=1617136141; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=mYwL7iVL73Jq07xoQw4hgz01+WjDNa+KqKP1R+qASFs=; b=Dlih33Cdo3F5R0mkMVLbITd482fOcKZp4K7NwYOC56HPsY5PW0XisNYd 3gyd3YMhdfzs+1YsbopNZmPGdDumf/KmqKOuBqobNmEbHnm0/XD68Cj+k 4J85tIW8ObrVqFatgHgGlNzNGocmrme5E17noWZRKWfAlAaDFVNqlo+D5 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0CEAADAE1Fg/xbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGBfAYBAQsBgyBWAScSMYRBiQSIRQOaWRSBaAQHAQEBCgMBASoKBAEBgViCdQKBdyY1CA4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBHGFYQ2GRAEBAQECASNWBQsLGCoCAlcGE4JwAYJmIQ+sOXeBMoQ/AYEYhQIKBoE5AYFSi3BCggyBOByCWD6CYAKBNg+DMDWCKwSBWoFQAQMyISItNi9eYp0SnGiDDIMzgT+EWJJ0Ax+DPpAzkCSXAYlDkkVGAYN4AgQGBQIWgVYDNYFXMxoIGxVlAYIKAQEyPhIZDY4rFohhhUZAAy84AgYBCQEBAwmMJIJFAQE
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:kVqF9axBsSfCYI7WZOMkKrPwrr1zdoIgy1knxilNYDZeG/bo9P yGtvIdyBPylXItSGgt8OrtBICsSW7RnKQV3aA/JrGnNTONhEKJK8VY4ZLm03ncHUTFltJ18a t7aaBxBJnRADFB4PrSxAm9H5IezMKc8Kau7N2w815XQQtna75t4m5CY27xLmRMSAZLHpY/Hp aHj/A3wgaIQ2gdbciwGxA+MdTrmtujruOFXTc2Qzou6AyDllqTmdrHOind+AsCWDVSxrpn1m 7Jn2XCl8OemsD+7APA3GnO6JkTov/d859oAcyBjdV9EESKtjqV
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,254,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="31808367"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Mar 2021 20:28:56 +0000
Received: from [10.61.144.78] ([10.61.144.78]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 12GKSt1s006509 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:28:55 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <1E7DEA1D-EA4C-41DE-865E-14534EDC1048@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_398313D0-3282-46F3-9861-85502B52FCEB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:28:54 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20640.1615925798@localhost>
Cc: "rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <240866a424caca4cf10e5df833533ffe.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org> <2a12c6bcb4bbbde5e4f046a9763272be.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org> <366a510ca7b4412892eac3c9dba81337@huawei.com> <20640.1615925798@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.78, [10.61.144.78]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/emidjMXKJLg0v5NSydkhAODg4qo>
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 20:29:03 -0000

I think it would benefit from opsawg review, and that a standard is appropriate in this instance.

Eliot

> On 16 Mar 2021, at 21:16, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> 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