Subject: [Iotops] Question about updating drafts

From: Sávyo Morais <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:39:17 -0300

Hi guys,

I'm sending this email with an honest question about the minimum requisites
for allowing a draft update.

Well, everyone knows that, when there is no more talk about one draft, it
might not be updated. But the point for me is: what about it received only
one or two comments? How much "not humming" is necessary for one draft to
be discontinued?

Furthermore, after the answer to this question (or discussion about that),
I would like to bring one concrete case to the table. In the past November,
I've submitted a draft [1] and received only one comment on this list with
a few suggestions for typo corrections.

Therefore, as the draft's expiration is approaching, I have doubts if I can
update it based on those comments.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morais-iotops-inxu/

--
Regards,
Sávyo Morais

---

From: Michael Sweet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:43:39 -0400

Sávyo,

I skimmed the referenced draft along with RFC 8250, since I wasn't familiar with that work...  My $0.02 CAD is that if MUDs are being implemented by vendors then MTDs would be a useful addition.  But in the printer world we've only been talking about TNC and EAP for securing enterprise networks...

> On Mar 29, 2022, at 9:39 AM, Sávyo Morais <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm sending this email with an honest question about the minimum requisites for allowing a draft update.
> 
> Well, everyone knows that, when there is no more talk about one draft, it might not be updated. But the point for me is: what about it received only one or two comments? How much "not humming" is necessary for one draft to be discontinued?
> 
> Furthermore, after the answer to this question (or discussion about that), I would like to bring one concrete case to the table. In the past November, I've submitted a draft [1] and received only one comment on this list with a few suggestions for typo corrections.
> 
> Therefore, as the draft's expiration is approaching, I have doubts if I can update it based on those comments.
> 
> Iotops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops

________________________
Michael Sweet

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:43:13 -0400

>> Well, everyone knows that, when there is no more talk about one draft,
    >> it might not be updated. But the point for me is: what about it received
    >> only one or two comments? How much "not humming" is necessary for one
    >> draft to be discontinued?

In general, anyone may call for a draft to be adopted by a WG.
(In practice, it is usually done by the WG chairs)

The job of the WG chairs is to judge consensus on whether or not the
document:
  a) fits into the WG charter
  b) is supported by some rough consensus of people
  c) whether there are IPR restrictions that might affect publication

RFC7221 discusses some of this, and there was an rfc7221bis to further
clarify that.

IOTOPS is unusual in that it doesn't have a mandate to process protocol
documents.   The INXU document would have to be adopted in the OPSAWG group,
which is where MUD extensions are being sent.  It is not coincidence that
OPSAWG and IOTOPS have a chair in common...
It might be that the DOTS WG would be a better place.
This would be a topic that needs discussion.

My feeling is that we need some solution in this space, but I'm not (yet)
convinced that your solution is the right one.

In general, you should probably repost/edit your draft until such time as it
gets adopted or there is rough consensus that it's a bad idea.

Michael Sweet <msweet=[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I skimmed the referenced draft along with RFC 8250, since I wasn't
    > familiar with that work...  My $0.02 CAD is that if MUDs are being
    > implemented by vendors then MTDs would be a useful addition.  But in
    > the printer world we've only been talking about TNC and EAP for
    > securing enterprise networks...

the problem is that todate, MUDs are not being implemented en mass by
vendors.  There is a chicken and egg problem, and there still needs to be
some strategic decisions to make it work out.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [