Hi, there seemed to be some reasonably positive responses at the OPSAWG meeting back on the 7th to my three drafts:
Authorized update to MUD URLs draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-00 There are two directions which this document can go in. One is a semantic update only (no on-the-wire changes) to RFC8520, making the mud-url tag carry more meaning. The other is to be explicit about the intended prefix. I'm rather open to either way: I think that the WG should consider adopting this if they think that they this is a problem that needs solving, and then we can pick a solution as a WG. Operational Considerations for use of DNS in IoT devices draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-02 This is very much an operational advice only. I'm never fond of documents that don't have on-the-wire implications, which this document does not. But, I think that it's important to be able to ask IoT vendors, "which option from RFCxyz did you implement?" Loading MUD URLs from QR codes draft-richardson-opsawg-securehomegateway-mud-03 Eliot suggests that we don't have the right to amend DPP, that it should be done in the context of SQRL. (also apparently DPP has added a a MUD option to a revision of their document, but I didn't look at that yet) I'd sure like the chairs to do an adoption call on these. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
