Hi Michael, I am sorry for missing that mail. Now we have IOTOPS for more bandwidth to discussion on MUD. I think it would be a good idea to collect more interest in IOTOPS, and bring to OPSAWG.
Tianran -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:17 AM To: rfc-...@rfc-editor.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Fwd: Your thoughts on draft-richardson-mud-qrcode] Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@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-...@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+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
