Ahh, didn't think to look on ietf.org.. fail me..
Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM Michael Richardson wrote:
> John Schiel wrote:
> > Just joined the WG mailing list today, Joe Clark made mention of a
> current
> > "mud@" mailing list on August 2nd.
>
> > Where is that
John Schiel wrote:
> Just joined the WG mailing list today, Joe Clark made mention of a current
> "mud@" mailing list on August 2nd.
> Where is that "mud@" mailing list?
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud
so mud@ietf, and mud-requ...@ietf.org to be added/removed, or use
Just joined the WG mailing list today, Joe Clark made mention of a current
"mud@" mailing list on August 2nd.
Where is that "mud@" mailing list?
Thanks,
--John
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> On Aug 1, 2019, at 18:09, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 5:44 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> 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
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 5:44 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) 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 is my list of MUD work. This is what I'm already active in, or which I
expect to start documents soon. I have not included documents that others
are writing!
1) title: Manufacturer Usuage Description for quarantined access to firmware
docname:
A new WG to focus on MUD sounds like a good idea. Several vendors and ISPs
offer security services to protect home networks, protecting IoT devices in
home networks is one of the key challenges, and MUD can help secure IoT
devices in both Enterprise and home networks and the security solutions in
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)"
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:44 PM
> 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
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 wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Joe,
>
>> On 29 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
>>
>> OpsAWG members and
Hi Joe,
> On 29 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Joe Clarke (jclarke) 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
Thank you for this thread.
Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> 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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
