Thanks Michael for working on this. See answers below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 7:35 AM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: iot-director...@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org; Eric Vyncke ;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations@ietf.org;
Dave Thaler via Datatracker wrote:
> Section 3.2 (A successful strategy):
>> This situation does not result in failures as long as all possible A/
>> records are returned. The MUD controller and the device get a
>> matching set, and the ACLs that are set up cover all
Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote:
> (4.1) There's an editorial error here.
> "An authoritative server might be tempted to provide an IP address literal
> inside the protocol: there are two arguments (anti-patterns) for doing
this."
> I'm expecting two reasons someone might
Eric, I've processed your comments first among the COMMENTS after
reorganizing the document. That re-org is in -13, and I sent a message about
that change before. I'll post -14 once I've been through them all.
I suspect that many of your comments are repeated by other ADs, but I can't
keep
Hi Jari,
Thanks for your comments and offer to help, it will be greatly received! We
are in the process of setting up the open mailing list. Once that has been
created, and advertised, then I will move discussion on the BOF and WG charter
discussion there.
Ack, on whether a BOF is needed or
