Subject: [OPSAWG] Ignas Bagdonas' No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Ignas Bagdonas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:08:47 -0700

Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: 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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

S2.1: Valid MUD file will contain "mud" and "acls" containers - what if it does
not, especially if it does not contain an ACL container - how will the
connectivity requirement be interpreted then?

A few nits:

s/MUR-URL/MUD-URL

s/yang/YANG in the document and module description fields.

s/dns/DNS in the modules.

S1, MUD building blocks section: "A URL that is can be used"

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:12:48 +0200

Hi Ignas,

I proposed the following to EKR to clarify:
>
> A valid MUD file MUST contain a "mud" container and MAY contain an
> optional access-lists container that will be present whenever access
> controls are to be requested.

> S1, MUD building blocks section: "A URL that is can be used"

All corrected, thanks!

Eliot