> On Aug 1, 2019, at 18:09, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 5:44 PM 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. > > > I *personally* believe that a WG focused on MUD makes sense - I think > that there are enough people interested in the topic, and enough work > to make it worthwhile - this will allow us to corral the work into a > single place and allow people interested in MUD to focus on that. > Forming a short lived WG *should not* be a large undertaking - Yes, > it does require some process wonkery with charters and such, but we > should be able to use the existing work as proof that there is > interest, etc. > If it turns out this is not enough work to justify an entire meeting > slot, we can have a joint OpsAWG / MUD meeting (which I'll agree is > only a marginal change from the current situation :-) ). If, on the > other hand, there is sufficient work for a slot, it will free up time > in OpsAWG and allow OpsAWG to work on other stuff.
Thanks, Warren. Presented work aside, there is also a mud@ list, and Michael has posted some work in progress from him that would likely fit. It could very well be that opsawg would become a MUD WG unless that work is spun out. > > Note that these are my personal views - the MUD WG, if it were to be > created, would presumably be on the Management side of Ops & Mgmt, and > so Ignas will have to approve / make the decision. This makes sense given what has already been ratified as well as the very strong tie to YANG in a lot of the current WIP. Joe > W > > > >> >> 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 > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
