(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
The RFC type required in Proposed Standard. This is the right track as it requires coordination between vendors and consumers in order to achieve interoperability, and there will be continuing work as more implements are produced.
The type of RFC is called out in the title page header.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
This memo specifies a component-based architecture for manufacturer
usage descriptions (MUD). The goal of MUD is to provide a means for
Things to signal to the network what sort of access and network
functionality they require to properly function. The initial focus
is on access control. Later work can delve into other aspects.
This memo specifies two YANG modules, IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP options, an
LLDP TLV, a URL suffix specification, an X.509 certificate extension
and a means to sign and verify the descriptions.
Working Group Summary
There was excellent discussion and comments throughout. The authors were quick to respond, and incorporate feedback as well as push back on items thought to be out of scope. The discussions led to talks of subsequent work for future drafts.
There are implementations in the works. Eliot Lear has stood up a tool at https://mudmaker.org/ that builds MUD files as a way to help vendors. There were numerous expert reviews including multiple areas and YANG Doctors. Those reviews led to some tighter security considerations, as well as more explicit mention that MUD files are to be taken under operational advisement as it is not wise to blindly apply others' configurations to your network. The YANG Doctors review, in particular, led to a better structure to the MUD YANG module that will allow it to provide a data definition, as well as be implemented on controllers if need be.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Joe Clarke is the document shepherd.
Warren Kumari is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
The Document Shepherd reviewed this draft multiple times across multiple revisions and provided feedback to the authors on the opsawg list each time. All feedback was incorporated. The Document Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. Many reviews were performed both in opsawg, as well as in other areas.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
The document was reviewed by the Security Directorate, IoT Directorate, YANG Doctors, and GEN ART. Feedback was reported by all reviewers and the responses were incorporated into the text as needed.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
There are no concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes. All IPR has been reported.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Yes, a disclosure has been made. There was no discussion on the IPR only to say IPR exists and it was disclosed.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Consensus was very solid with many expressing support for the work. There were no dissenters, and there were a large number of reviews outside of the authors' organization that indicate broad support.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
No NITS beyond some spacing weirdness caused by pyang's tree output.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has been reviewed by YANG Doctors as described above.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
The only non-ratified normative reference is to draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model. This is a WG document proceeding towards standardization I do not have a firm timeline on when that is expected.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA considerations follow with the text of the document by requiring registration for the module namespaces, DHCP options to facilitate the transmission of MUD URLs, PKIX extensions for MUD, LLDP extensions for MUD advertisement, a MUD file media type, a URN for MUD resources, and a new registry for MUD extensions.
Each of these requirements are described within the text of the document to justify the ask of IANA.
The newly created registry has details on how new extensions are to be defined.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
A new URN namespace for urn:ietf:params:mud has been requested with two initial resources of urn:ietf:params:mud:dns and urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp.
A new registry to hold MUD extensions has been requested.
Any expert reviews will require people with MUD expertise.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Various YANG validators (e.g., pyang, yanglint) have been run on the YANG models. The models within this document validate properly.