While this draft was already put through WGLC in March, there have been
a number of changes to it that should be reviewed. This document has
had early reviews by SEC-DIR, IOT-DIR, and GEN. The chairs are
particularly looking for a review of those items that have changed since
the -05 review (thes
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more informati
Hi Eliot,
I am definitely interested in a MUD controller RFC and would be glad to
help in its defintion. It would be nice to see some clear definition on how
to interact with a MUD controller - i.e. a YANG model such as this one
would make sense to include. Another item to consider in such an RFC
This one corrects the examples. mudmaker.org has been updated as well.
Eliot
On 9/20/17 4:11 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Manufacturer Usage Description Specification
Authors : Eliot Lear
Hey Benoit,
Thanks for the review.
> Figure 3: Network configuration model is a brand new term that is only
> mentioned
> in the figure, and not explained.
OMG! That is a good catch.
> In the same figure, could the "Device Configuration Model" be renamed to RFC
> 8199
> "Network Element
Hi Ranga,
I think this makes sense for a MUD controller YANG model, but doesn't do
well in a MUD file itself. We stop short of that in the document, for
fear of boiling the ocean, but I would happily do some follow-up work
with you that would include this, if you're interested. The model *is*
st
