Subject: [Madinas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-madinas-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:24:36 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-madinas-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-madinas/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Can the scope of the work be refined?

“Currently, many use cases and applications make an implicit assumption about
the unique association between the device identity and its MAC address. ...
This requires updating applications to function across MAC address changes.”

This text suggests explicit changes are needed.  However, it isn’t clear what
exact IETF protocols are now broken due to RCM that might bound this
exploration.  Is this an instance of “we know we have a problem but we don’t
sufficiently understand the scope” yet?

(2) The phrase “personal device identity” is used twice.  Is that a term of
art?  Is it the same as “Layer 2 device identifier”? or “device identifier”?

(3) Per “The group will also evaluate various identifiers (i.e., beyond the MAC
address) that can be used by the network to provide services, as well as
scenarios where personal device identity is not required”:

-- is this “evaluat[ion] [of] various identifiers” strictly bound to previously
published specifications for identifiers?  If not, this suggests “new
solutions” work subject to recharter later in the text.

-- It would seem that an evaluation would have to be done in context of
specific protocols.  Are these protocols known at this time?

(4) Per “An Informational Use Cases and Requirements document (e.g.
draft-henry-madinas-framework)”, this deliverable doesn’t naturally fall out of
the previous charter text for me.  Specifically:

-- I stumbled over the term “MADINAS use cases” as the WG isn’t intended to
create solutions.  Is it an enumeration of existing protocols, applications and
operational practices where MAC addresses are used for identity?

-- A requirements document for what audience and for what purpose?  (e.g., is
it for end device vendors implementing RCM? application owners relying on
static MAC addresses? Other SDOs?)