Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-mud

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:03:18 +0100

All,

Mark Nottingham and I had some extensive conversations about how to
handle the MUD URL.  The issue is was that Mark identified a potential
violation of a best practice in the way the URL was structured.  The
principles I seek to maintain are these:

  * The base MUD URL is formed solely by the Thing
  * It may be necessary in the future for the MUD controller to provide
    additional information to the MUD file server.
  * How that happens can be decided in the future, but we should be
    conservative in our approach to leave options opened.

Therefore, the result of the discussions is that we should permit a
normal HTTPS URI as a MUD URL, with all the associated semantics, with
the exception that queries for now will not be allowed.

At the same time, as we build out future work, we will hold discussions
with the Web/HTTP folk on the best way to proceed.  There are at least
two ways to tackle this in the future: an HTTP header, or some limited
use of the query component.  We needn't decide any of that today.

Is this okay with you?

Eliot

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:30:28 -0500

Speaking as a contributor...

On 2/19/18 05:03, Eliot Lear wrote:
> All,
> 
> Mark Nottingham and I had some extensive conversations about how
> to handle the MUD URL.  The issue is was that Mark identified a
> potential violation of a best practice in the way the URL was
> structured.  The principles I seek to maintain are these:
> 

_Formed by_, but relies on the URL pointing to something in the manuf.
world.  Meaning, the Thing doesn't just make this up, which is how it
initially read to me.

> * It may be necessary in the future for the MUD controller to
> provide additional information to the MUD file server. * How that
> happens can be decided in the future, but we should be conservative
> in our approach to leave options opened.

This sounds reasonable.

> 
> Therefore, the result of the discussions is that we should permit
> a normal HTTPS URI as a MUD URL, with all the associated semantics,
> with the exception that queries for now will not be allowed.
> 
> At the same time, as we build out future work, we will hold
> discussions with the Web/HTTP folk on the best way to proceed.
> There are at least two ways to tackle this in the future: an HTTP
> header, or some limited use of the query component.  We needn't
> decide any of that today.
> 
> Is this okay with you?

Yes.  It is good to be careful as to ensure a strong standard.  But...

Speaking as a co-chair...

Is this a case of perfect being the enemy of good?  I know of some
people working to implement this.  I don't think they are all on this
list.  Have you run this by them to see if this limits any use cases
out of the box?  It wouldn't make sense to put something out that
wouldn't be implemented (i.e., implementors all need that future work
to happen first).

Joe

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:38:59 +0100

On 19.02.18 16:30, Joe Clarke wrote:
> out of the box?

I have.  I think they're okay with it.  They would have been better with
it if we had resolved this a year ago but one doesn't get everything one
wants.  They DO expect us to hold discussions with the apps folks so we
can get on to the next thing.

Eliot

> It wouldn't make sense to put something out that

---

From: "Marco Davids (SIDN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:07:05 +0100

Op 19-02-18 om 17:38 schreef Eliot Lear:

>> I know of some
> I have.  I think they're okay with it.  
Anyone knows if these implementations-in-the-making are to be admired as 
open source somewhere on-line?

--
Marco

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:39:35 +0100

Yes, but they're not quite ready for release (I know of at least two). 
I think they're waiting for this doc to get finished.

On 19.02.18 19:07, Marco Davids (SIDN) wrote:
> Anyone knows if these implementations-in-the-making are to be admired
> as open source somewhere on-line?
>
> -- 
> Marco
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg