Re: [OPSAWG] [Mud] Declaring something to be a controller in MUD

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 02 July 2019 06:11 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 945E41200A4; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 zF-yme4YMO3m; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 23:10:58 -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 AE0111200B3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 23:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4013; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562047858; x=1563257458; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=sl2T3sxJ82MVOAbNx7E72mp/3OIxFRJ67L4ugGjW/ZU=; b=IFk6zJiKB2Y+B4zI/366CqoU4h7GT5Qw4MSc5Gekapv/tbYADNqLPZBr odfXbYecTDWSA19LRFuW9buISNJujoqUua7BuZokwAOdO0kiKpe843sJh KCT5G0J81cMEpXmt9lJvC9/i135Zh88OclfgGPtxhuiHmG8DZ8OTcsJ1s k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAABA9Bpd/xbLJq1mGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBVgEBAQEBAQsBAYETgj0hEiiEHIh7jAiHLoIdiSWHfQI?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQEBCQMBAS8BAYRAAoMnNwYOAQMBAQQBAQIBBW2KQ0IBEAGEdgEBAQECASN?= =?us-ascii?q?WBQsLBBQqAgIhNgYTgyIBgWoDDg+lGYEyhUeCRw2CFhCBNAGBUIolgX+BOB+?= =?us-ascii?q?CHi4+ghqFNDKCJgSMJIg0lRhACYIYgh+BDIxeg3IbjSuKQJZdinKDCQIEBgU?= =?us-ascii?q?CFYFmIoFYMxoIGxVlAYJBPpBJPQMwhTiJLgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,442,1557187200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="13775770"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Jul 2019 06:10:55 +0000
Received: from [10.61.244.239] ([10.61.244.239]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x626AsuO019248 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:10:55 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <FCFACB31-934A-4DED-A522-A6B13B40EA11@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F73EB660-D21E-4395-B602-4A50B5DF6A0F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:10:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAHiu4JNMrZMX8upAnwEU1qvGie5WTONSsnWU8LfOfYO2Yh+CFg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "mud@ietf.org" <mud@ietf.org>
To: "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49BC8F3@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <230EB786-36AB-4E79-A6DD-20278E895763@cisco.com> <CAHiu4JNMrZMX8upAnwEU1qvGie5WTONSsnWU8LfOfYO2Yh+CFg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.244.239, [10.61.244.239]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/pAfKIHZJNFmCGQ3Eg5aUSBnvGDE>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Mud] Declaring something to be a controller in MUD
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, 02 Jul 2019 06:11:01 -0000

Hi Ranga,

Sorry for the pre-mature send.

> On 1 Jul 2019, at 20:51, M. Ranganathan <mranga@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What is the essential difference between a device declaring itself to be a "controller" for another class and the situation where the device (being controlled) just uses the "model" abstraction in an ACE?
> 

You could indeed do this with “model”.  The reason I hadn’t thought of that was because in my mind, same-manufacturer and model were for NxN communications, and that it might be a hint to the NMS to use appropriate scale mechanisms.  But that’s not actually in the text.

I think, by the way, that there’s another reason to think about doing this from the controller side: if the standards are open like we like them to be, a device may not know who should be the controller for a particular device or class.

Eliot