On the other hand, it shouldn’t just be me. It’d be a very small working group ;-) If others are interested, they should speak up.
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 11:09, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi Joe, > >> On 29 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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? > > I think it is probably time for at least one WG to spring from OPSAWG. We > didn’t really complete the agenda at the IETF, and a good reason of that was > MUD. There are at least four active drafts on that one subject, one of which > we didn’t really talk about (bw-profile). For me it’s a matter of what can > reasonably be coded, tested, and be useful for manufacturers. In as much as > we can bring a bit more focus to manufacturers by offering them more of a > venue for discussion, the additional WG would be welcome. On the other hand, > if we find that we’re not making progress, or if we progress extensions > quickly, we can close the WG and continue the mailing list, and move back to > OPSAWG. I don’t see a MUD working group as a long term activity (famous last > words), but targeted more at producing the necessary for broader adoption and > then going out of business. > > Eliot > >> >> Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
