Subject: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:07:12 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor comments:

1) "is-supported" confused me a bit at the beginning. Maybe "is-maintained"
could be a better name?

2) Why does the MUD file contain the MUD URL? Is this meant to be used as an
identifier?

3) Given this document talks quite often about possible future extensions, I'm
also wondering if this should be Experimental. However, I assume the
framework/architecture that is defined in this doc is not suppoed to change and
as such PS might be good as well.

4) I understand that the use of YANG is quite convinent for ACLs, however, I'm
wondering if it is still the right choice if the MUD File would be used to
describe more detailed behavior/traffic patterns. However, that should probably
not be changed now, but might be another reason to go for experimental.
Annother solution would be to further separate the architecture from the MUD
file format (maybe into different doc?) and include a versioning mechanism in
the MUD URL.