IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 07 September 2005 03:10 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ECqKB-0004sq-0n; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:10:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ECqK8-0004sD-5Q; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:10:08 -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 XAA23687; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 23:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECqNC-00064P-9X; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:13:19 -0400
Received: from h-68-166-37-198.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.166.37.198] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1ECqK1-00059r-00; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:10:01 -0400
Message-ID: <005701c5b359$f1e1de60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, nanog@merit.edu, iesg@ietf.org
References: <431DD3BD.9090108@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:12:12 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc:
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

Hi -

> From: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>
> To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>; <nanog@merit.edu>; <iesg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10:37 AM
> Subject: ISMS working group and charter problems
...
> The addition of call home functionality won't represent a major
> architectural change to SNMP.  The major architectural change (if there
> is one) will be the use of SSH at all and the use of TCP.
...

Regardless of whether "call home functionality" as you defined it is
desirable, I disagree with the claim that it wouldn't represent a
major architectural change to SNMP.  For notification originators, it
is a quite natural extension, and I have no problem with it.  For command
responders, I think this would be a fairly significant addition to the architecture.
I'm neutral on the question of whether it is needed, and perhaps we only
differ in what we perceive as "major", but I think we need to be clear that
it would indeed require changing the SNMP architecture.

I also disagree that it is the use of SSH or TCP that results in the architectural
changes.  TCP use without "call home" (as in RFC 3430) requires no
architectural changes.

Randy




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email