Subject: [Mud] what if MUD file is now longer available?

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 19:51:08 -0400

{did the list transition go as intended?}

What should a MUD-manager do if a MUD file can no longer be found at the
provided URL?   Perhaps this is equivalent to the signature not verifying.

I'm thinking specifically of a case where a device is initially created by a
contractor, they dutifully create a MUD file, provide it to the customer to
host, and then.. the customer forgets... marketing reorganizes the web site,
etc.  and so the MUD file goes missing.

Section 13.2 says that the MUD-manager should cease processing at that point.
I guess at that point, the access should therefore be default-deny.
I guess the other question is what would the access be if there were no
MUD URL at all.  We'd all like to be default-deny, but I think that during
a transition period it can't be that.

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

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 21:19:12 -0400

> {did the list transition go as intended?}

sorry. just did.

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "mud-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to [email-masked].
> To post to this group, send email to [email-masked].
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mud-discuss/17454.1557618668%40localhost.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:31:48 +0200

> On 12 May 2019, at 01:51, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

If you ever had a valid MUD file you should keep using it.  This follows the principle of least astonishment.  Otherwise, a temporary outage might cause policy flaps.  An alternative might be to invoke an exception flow that says, “yo! No more MUD file”.

A few things to think about with this use case.  We really don’t have contact information in the MUD file.  While one might think that an oversight, honestly I get a little nervous about sticking email addresses in various places that can be harvested for SPAM.

Eliot

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mud-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mud-discuss/17454.1557618668%40localhost.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 17:25:10 -0400

> If you ever had a valid MUD file you should keep using it.  This
    > follows the principle of least astonishment.  Otherwise, a temporary
    > outage might cause policy flaps.  An alternative might be to invoke an
    > exception flow that says, “yo! No more MUD file”.

Yes, I'm asking: what if the MUD-manager never got a valid MUD file.
It did exist at some point, but then marketing moved it when they redid the
web site, or the company just went under.

    > A few things to think about with this use case.  We really don’t have
    > contact information in the MUD file.  While one might think that an
    > oversight, honestly I get a little nervous about sticking email
    > addresses in various places that can be harvested for SPAM.

The contact info does not have to be an email address.

It could point to quite a number of other things.
There are some identities out there like 1id.com, Dun&Bradstreet numbers, RIR
handles,  URLs, ...

...

Consider the opposite consideration: without a contact, one has no ability to
find out who is liable.   That would be a relatively low-bar for an import
regulation.  Every device gets a verifiable contact, or it does not get past
customs.  The QR code on the case containing the MUD URL provides that.