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

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 26 June 2019 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6FD120188; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mHjcPmi4dHOw; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C09E1203AE; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9A13808A; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 297E2E68; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28194E37; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <1547.1561492346@localhost> <> <11505.1561563275@localhost> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:26:26 -0400
Message-ID: <13929.1561584386@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Mud] Declaring something to be a controller in MUD
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:26:30 -0000

Eliot Lear <> wrote:
    >>> There will ALWAYS be a need for an administrator in the enterprise
    >>> case.  But maybe with the options above we can ease the consumer burden
    >>> over time.  In the consumer case, you might want an app for initial
    >>> device admission control anyway, no?  Can we not rely on that
    >>> interaction as an approval step in this instance?
    >> I think we'd all like to have a generic app (with an RFC standard API) that
    >> can onboard any device and can do admission control for any controller.
    >> I think this is what you are saying as well.

    > Yes, but I was saying a bit more.  Do you expect to fully automate the
    > inclusion of a controller into a controller class in the home?  How do
    > you envision the full flow looking like?

I expect to fully automate the inclusion of a controller into that class,
yes.   I'd like to automate the device into the class too.

Perhaps your point is that since the controller has to onboard (at the
layer-7) the device in anyway: can we leverage that?

    >> yes, this is exactly what I was thinking about.
    >> Would "mud-urls" / "include" be mutually exclusive?

    > I don’t see why it would have to be.  But now let’s back up, just to
    > make sure we’re not digging too deep a hole for the application case
    > that Ranga wants to get to.  If the MUD protected device is declaring
    > MUD URLs for MUD controllers and that is what all of this would boil
    > down to, then the app case is really a completely separate mechanism,
    > because apps don’t have MUD-URLs.

    > If we do a two-stage, then we need a completely separate draft for apps
    > anyway, but I was hoping for some commonality.


Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-