Re: [OPSAWG] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 4/11/18 11:58 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> All the way down...
>
>
> On 11.04.18 18:15, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Similarly, the use of the word standardized naked like that is 
>>> probably unhelpful.
>> Can I infer you plan to edit it out or dress it more?
>
> Yes.
>
>>> One could imagine, for instance, Fairhair or some other consortium 
>>> deciding to create standard classes.
>>>
>>> What I propose is two changes to facilitate better understanding:
>>>
>>>  1. To include the simple example described above.
>>>  2. To add an optional "documentation"  element in the "mud"
>>>     container that consists of a URL that points to documents for
>>>     each class, when so used.
>>>
>> Sure.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>> With this, I'm puzzled about the use of the word standardized at all. 
>> I think I'm hearing that you expect MUD controllers to know about 
>> some well-known classes by convention and that groups like fairhair 
>> or someone else might make a list of classes that MUD controllers 
>> might collectively decide to build in knowledge of. Am I getting 
>> closer to the right picture? (This is opposed to a set of classes 
>> that are created by a standards action and listed in a registry 
>> somewhere).
>
> The class is just a name that expands out to a bunch of IP addresses.  
> It happens to take the form of a URI, but it's really just a name.  
> There could be well known NAMES, and indeed we create a URN registry 
> just for that purpose.  Maybe I need to be a bit more clearer on that 
> point?
Probably good to do? I hope I'm not just being too thick-headed here.
>
> Eliot