Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

Hi Mike,

At 8:41 AM -0700 9/7/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
>In answer to Margaret's question about how it would know
>where to "call home", it seems to me to be about the same
>problem as with traps/informs. I haven't had anything to do
>with this wg, but it seems pretty plausible that you'd
>initiate the session from the agent using a trap/inform
>over tcp/ssh/whatever and then just reuse the connection
>for subsequent pdu's sort of akin to http 1.1 reuse. It
>would just all sort of fall out of the overall snmp
>architecture.

So, every time a notification sender sends a trap or notification it 
would set-up a TCP connection to each of the notification receivers 
in its list and keep that connection up indefinitely?  Would it 
reestablish ithose connections when they fail?  How long would it 
keep a connections up if it never receives a command request on that 
particular connection?  Please remember that not all notification 
receivers _are_ command requestors, and not all command requestors 
are notification receivers.

I do think that if you built a mechanism for a command responder to 
open a connection to a command requestor, the MIB for configuring the 
new mechanism might resemble the MIB that is used to determine 
notifications should be sent, but I don't think that it will be 
identical and I do not think that the current MIB should be 
overloaded in this way.

BTW, nothing about your note explains to me why you think that this 
mechanism should be defined in a Security area WG that is working on 
a completely separable problem.  If you really think that defining 
call home for SNMP is something that the IETF should do, I would 
encourage you to get together with Eliot and request a BOF in the OPS 
area.

Margaret

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf