Subject: [OPSAWG] MUD extension documents from me...

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:25:53 -0400

Hi, there seemed to be some reasonably positive responses at the OPSAWG
meeting back on the 7th to my three drafts:

Authorized update to MUD URLs
draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-00
There are two directions which this document can go in.
One is a semantic update only (no on-the-wire changes) to RFC8520, making the
mud-url tag carry more meaning.
The other is to be explicit about the intended prefix.

I'm rather open to either way: I think that the WG should consider adopting
this if they think that they this is a problem that needs solving, and then
we can pick a solution as a WG.

Operational Considerations for use of DNS in IoT devices
draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-02
This is very much an operational advice only.
I'm never fond of documents that don't have on-the-wire implications, which
this document does not.  But, I think that it's important to be able to
ask IoT vendors, "which option from RFCxyz did you implement?"

Loading MUD URLs from QR codes
draft-richardson-opsawg-securehomegateway-mud-03
Eliot suggests that we don't have the right to amend DPP, that it should be
done in the context of SQRL.
(also apparently DPP has added a a MUD option to a revision of their
document, but I didn't look at that yet)

I'd sure like the chairs to do an adoption call on these.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-