Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Hi Marco, I think this is an example opportunity for an extension.  Let's put that together separately.  happy to work with you on it. Eliot On 31.01.18 10:07, Marco Davids (SIDN) wrote: > Op 26-01-18 om 20:17 schreef Saswat Praharaj (saspraha): > >> Adding device information

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Hi Eliot, Adding device information (manufacture/device-type etc.) in MUD file provides visibility in network, in addition to policy. If visibility is not that important for MUD, we could have it as optional parameters. IMHO, it’s important because MUD will not be the only policy for the

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Hi Saswat, On 26.01.18 20:17, Saswat Praharaj (saspraha) wrote: > Hi Eliot, > > Adding device information (manufacture/device-type etc.) in MUD file provides visibility in network, in addition to policy. > If visibility is not that important for MUD, we could have it as optional parameters. > >

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

On 26.01.18 11:05, Joe Clarke wrote: > > Fair, but why not mandatory then for device-type, model-number, and > manuf-name? I think the argument should be the other way around.  Why should they be mandatory?  Making things mandatory makes them more fragile.  To me there really has to be value in

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/24/18 06:24, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > On 24.01.18 12:20, Joe Clarke wrote: >> Is there a reason why they wouldn't be mandatory? Seems like >> these data would be readily available and having them would make >> a number of use case cases

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

On 24.01.18 19:25, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > >> On Jan 24, 2018, at 12:34 AM, Eliot Lear > > wrote: >> >> This update primarily focuses on two elements that were agreed during >> WGLC: >> >> * The update to the ACL model.  That update has taken

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 12:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > This update primarily focuses on two elements that were agreed during WGLC: > > The update to the ACL model. That update has taken longer than I would have > liked, but it is now at least close to finished. Note: the MUD

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Fair enough. Thank you. Cheers, Med De : Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com] Envoyé : mercredi 24 janvier 2018 13:16 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Mahesh Jethanandani; opsawg@ietf.org; Mark Nottingham; Saswat Praharaj (saspraha) Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Hi Med, Please see below: On 24.01.18 12:54, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > My understanding from draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14 is that acl-type > remains acl-type.  acl-name became name.  But you're right- rule-name > became name as well.  I will adjust the text accordingly. > >

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

) Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt Hi Med, On 24.01.18 10:52, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: Hi Eliot, Some quick comments: * Please note that "acl-type" should be “type” and "rule-name" should be c

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

On 24.01.18 12:20, Joe Clarke wrote: > Is there a reason why they wouldn't be mandatory?  Seems like these > data would be readily available and having them would make a number of > use case cases possible. Yes, there is.  If the MUD-URL is "burned in" via 802.1AR and the software can be

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/24/18 05:05, Eliot Lear wrote: > In addition, I have received the following requests for data > elements to be added to the core model: > > * Manufacturer-Name * Device-Type * Model-Number * > Software-version > > > Unless I hear objections, I

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

Yes, this makes sense. Eliot On 24.01.18 11:14, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: >> In addition, I have received the following requests for data elements to >> be added to the core model: >> >> * Manufacturer-Name >> * Device-Type >>

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > > In addition, I have received the following requests for data elements to > be added to the core model: > > * Manufacturer-Name > * Device-Type > * Model-Number > * Software-version > Will these definitions be aligned with

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

> > *De :*OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] *De la part de* Eliot Lear > *Envoyé :* mercredi 24 janvier 2018 09:34 > *Cc :* Mahesh Jethanandani; opsawg@ietf.org; Mark Nottingham > *Objet :* Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt > >   > > This update p

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

org] De la part de Eliot Lear Envoyé : mercredi 24 janvier 2018 09:34 Cc : Mahesh Jethanandani; opsawg@ietf.org; Mark Nottingham Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt This update primarily focuses on two elements that were agreed during WGLC: * The update to the

[OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-14.txt

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