Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

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

                           Harald