Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> I unfortunately find this document very hard to understand. Overall, I
think it
> would do better to split out the use cases. It seems to conflate or mix
three
> distinct use cases: 1) A CPE with firewall+MUD-controller and an IoT MUD
> client, 2) A CPE with firewall with separate MUD controller and IoT MUD
client,
> 3) An IoT device and a centralized enterprise MUD controller and
centralized
> enterprise firewalling. This then gets more complicated due to
> different
There are many ways to deploy IoT devices, but this document is not about any
of the use cases for deploying IoT device.
This document is about IoT devices themselves do (or other specific purpose
devivces), and the MUD files that explain what kinds of limited access the
devices themselves need.
The abstract says:
This document details concerns about how Internet of Things (IoT) devices use
IP
addresses and DNS names.
There are many environments in which IoT devices might find themselves, and
the document explains some ways in which MUD might be enforced. It does that
so that manufacturers will understand the restrictions of the environments
that they might find themselves.
But it does not intend at any time attempt to make any of those methods
definitive,
or how to make them work.
So I really have no idea how to respond to your DISCUSS.
It's all about some different document as far as I can tell.
More IESG members seem to have read your discuss comments rather than
abstract for the document, that clearly the document needs to be rewritten.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
