Re: ISMS working group

At 08:44 AM 9/12/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>Hi Eliot,
>
>At 9:44 AM +0200 9/12/05, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>Actually, depending on how the solution is developed it certainly CAN
>>help the problem with the manager being outside a NAT.  But we are now
>>being somewhat loose with terms, so let me be more specific.
>
>I am sorry that I attempted to state any properties of the call-home 
>solution, because it is clear that the term is not well-enough 
>defined or specified to be discussed clearly.  I thought that I 
>understood what it was, but apparently I am mistaken.
>
>If you really believe that this solution is needed, I think you 
>would do best to write a draft and _then_ try to get it adopted by 
>an appropriate WG.

Stepping back a bit from this discussion and thinking about what has 
been said to date, it occurs to me that part of the problem with how 
the IETF presently does business comes from a reliance on 
pigeon-holing any particular work into one of several areas. The 
Security area is working on fixing the security issues of SNMP, but 
O&M is the "home" of SNMP. Is there enough involvement of folks from 
both sides? Should there be working groups that are co-owned by 
multiple areas/ADs? Would this result in a more balanced set of conclusions?

Eliot rightly asks the question in one of his emails whether SNMP 
changes should be considered more widely so as to develop one new 
protocol revision for implementers to work toward, rather than a 
series of incremental changes. If indeed we're talking about SNMPv4, 
then perhaps a series of drafts should work toward that, and be 
unified into one or a few proposed standard documents that are 
released at one time, with all of the new work.

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