OpsAWG members and our Ops ADs, it was discussed in opsawg at IETF 105 that with the amount of MUD work being proposed (and discussions happening outside of opsawg) that perhaps MUD should evolve into its own WG. Some cons to this approached were discussed (maybe it would be too heavy-weight with a charter, milestones, etc.). However, I wanted to take this conversation to the list so we can close on it publicly.
Speaking as WG co-chair, I am happy to continue to support the MUD work in opsawg, but I want to make sure the WG feels compelled to work on it; and I want to make sure the full community that is interested in MUD can follow and discuss items here. That said, it was mentioned in 105 that perhaps a bigger “on-boarding” set of work would be better served in its own WG. I think if the scope of MUD grows beyond the definition and its extensions (as we’ve been seeing the work progress thus far) it might be better served in its own WG space. Thoughts? Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
