Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Wed, 07 September 2005 09:18 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ECw4B-0006pR-3W; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:18:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ECw47-0006mo-Td for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:18:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06365 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECw7C-0007Aa-EL for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:21:11 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j879HNOI146894 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:17:24 GMT
Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j879HNtG144006 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:17:23 +0200
Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j879HMsQ016697 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:17:23 +0200
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j879HMK8016681; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:17:22 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-249-185.de.ibm.com [9.145.249.185]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA30162; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:17:20 +0200
Message-ID: <431EB020.8090101@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:17:20 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
References: <431DD3BD.9090108@cisco.com> <431DD94C.8070907@dcrocker.net> <261A1E9D259E6FA3B9203B61@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
In-Reply-To: <261A1E9D259E6FA3B9203B61@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: ISMS working group and charter problems
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 6. september 2005 11:00 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
>> (By the way, I am awestruck at the potential impact of changing SNMP from
>> UDP-based to TCP-based, given the extensive debates that took place about
>> this when SNMP was originally developed.  Has THIS decision been subject
>> to adequate external review, preferably including a pass by the IAB?)
> 
> 
> just a formality note (and dropping nanog and the IESG):
> 
> I believe that the ISMS WG's proposal is about ADDING the possibility of 
> SNMP over TCP, not about CHANGING SNMP to use TCP.
> UDP will still work.
> 
> And I believe Eliot's concern is about letting the TCP session that 
> carries the SNMP PDUs be opened from the agent to the manager, rather 
> than from the manager to the agent (yes I know - this is SNMPv1 
> terminology, but I've forgotten the SNMPv3 terminology); that is another 
> feature that comes in addition to what the group is apparently currently 
> working on.
> And just BTW: I find "call home" reasonable to specify too, once you've 
> done TCP. It's obvious enough that I think it will be added to 
> implementations whether or not we specify it, so we should have very 
> strong reasons not to do so.

"Call home" is IMHO a fairly radical departure for SNMP and
raises trust model questions that I don't find easy to get
hold of. It seems quite distinct from both firewall traversal
and NAT traversal, conceptually, even if they might be
a side-effect of calling home.

> I don't even believe you need to "turn" the session, since SNMPv3 
> doesn't recognize the concept of a "direction" for a session.... just 
> let the PDUs flow....
> 
> Disclaimer: I, too, have not seen the charter being proposed, 

It should be on the ietf-announce list sometime today.

> and I have 
> not followed the ISMS group. I have, however, once upon a time been 
> responsible AD for the SNMPv3 WG.



    Brian


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