Thank you for this thread. Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I think that MUD and MUD extensions is a pretty clear scope.
I think that the bigger on-boarding work is too nebulous to scope easily.
Perhaps a WG could be created with a name/scope like:
Security Operations for Constrained Devices
(except that won't be a cool enough acronym)
-- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
