Re: [Call-home] last call for a Call Home BoF

Pekka Nikander <> Wed, 12 October 2005 13:53 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EPh2s-0003Kt-5N; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:53:26 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EPh2q-0003Km-Kn for; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:53:24 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22236 for <>; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EPhD9-0002pm-AX for; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:04:04 -0400
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F125A212CBE; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:53:03 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Pekka Nikander <>
Subject: Re: [Call-home] last call for a Call Home BoF
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:53:05 +0200
To: Eliot Lear <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues relating to &quot; call home&quot; functionality and firewall traversal" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


I think it is important to discuss this problem space, as there are a  
number of completely different approaches already being developed,  
including STUN/ICE/whatever and IPsec with NAT-T.  Whether the  
proposed approach is a good addition to the set is something that  
could clearly be discussed in a BOF.

--Pekka NIkander

On Oct 12, 2005, at 10:12, Eliot Lear wrote:

> After all of the mail last month, Bert is considering allowing a  
> BoF on the topic of Call Home.  I initially posted a note to the  
> call-home mailing list announcing the possibility of a BoF.   
> Response to that note was - well - underwhelming.  If you are  
> interested in seeing one, could you please reply to this email,  
> CCing the call-home mailing list.  Here is a draft agenda.  It is  
> subject to your input.
> If we do not see much input, I'm going to drop the request to Bert.
> Eliot
> Title: callhome
> Period of time: 1 hour
> Area: ops-nm
> Expected # attendees: 40-60 (small room)
> Don't conflict with: ISMS, ops-area, netconf (if there is one)
> Short Description: Discussion of Architectural Issues Concerning
>            protocols that could benefit from reversing
>            of roles
> Long Description:
> Certain protocols, and in particular management protocols where
> devices on either end of connection take client server roles may
> be able to take advantage of "Call Home" functionality, when
> traditional roles are reversed, and a server connect to a client.
> Examples of existing protocols that make use of call home include
> SMTP [ETRN] and COPS.  At this BoF we will look at extending such
> functionality into other protocols, as well as any architectural
> issues this raises.
> This work stems from efforts in ISMS to extend SNMP to run over SSH,
> as well as work as work that has gone on in NETCONF.
> We will begin with a discussion of draft-lear-callhome-description-0 
> [1,2].txt, which contains a description of call home, what problems  
> it can solve, and what some of the architectural issues are.   
> During the BoF we may identify additional such issues as well as  
> protocols other than management protocols that could benefit from  
> this work.  An additional potential question should be whether a  
> generic standard or process should be used to implement call home,  
> such as rules for SSH.
> There are three possible outcomes: a working group to add "call home"
> functionality to existing protocols such as SNMP/SSH and NETCONF/SSH,
> use of existing working groups for this purpose, or nothing.
> Chair: Eliot Lear (or tbd)
> Agenda:
> Agenda bashing - 1 minute
> Presentation of draft-lear-callhome-description-00.txt 19 minutes
> Application to SNMP and open areas - 10 minutes
> Discussion including architectural issues - 20 minutes
> Moving Forward Options  - 10 minutes
> _______________________________________________
> Call-home mailing list

Call-home mailing list