Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> writes:

    Tom> I think that there is subtext that is missing here.

    Tom> Call Home was declared out of scope, more or less, for isms
    Tom> before the decision to use SSH was taken (the suggestion was
    Tom> made on the isms list to set up a BOF in the Operations Area
    Tom> to explore Call Home).  

I'm not sure this is accurate, but I don't think it matters.

    Tom> The significance is that SSH is not
    Tom> perceived as a good fit for Call Home, whereas a different
    Tom> protocol, seen as less suitable in other regards, might be.
    Tom> So if the community at large comes to regard Call Home as a
    Tom> mandatory requirement, then that would be construed as saying
    Tom> that SSH is the wrong protocol (which may be what this
    Tom> discussion is really about:-).

I don't believe that it is true that ssh is not perceived as a good
fit for call home.  I think the strongest statement I've seen in that
regard is that ssh is not the solution netconf chose for call home, so
we might end up with incompatible solutions if ISMS chooses a
different solution than netconf.

Note that the mandatory to implement solution for netconf is based on
ssh and does not support call home.

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