Dear IESG and MUD Enthusiasts, I'm working through your comments, turning them all into issues, but I want to alert you that the -12/-13 diff includes a significant restructuring of the document in order to bring the *BCP* nature of the document more clearly to the front. I've tried to socialize this change via hallway conversations. This also means that some of your detailed comments have completely missed the mark, and I won't be turning those into issues as I go through them.
There is no attempt in this document to standardize any *MUD controller* aspects or protocols, but IoT vendors need a model against which to determine what kind of DNS behaviour will work, and what will not. That was stated in the abstract: This document details concerns about how Internet of Things (IoT) devices use IP addresses and DNS names. These concerns become acute as network operators begin deploying RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) definitions to control device access. Also, this document makes recommendations on when and how to use DNS names in MUD files. I won't repeat this in each of the comments that I got, assuming everyone might read this once. https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-13&difftype=--html Looks like this might also contain some xml2rfc version based changes, e.g.: as s3.amazonaws.com). vs as "s3.example.com" -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
