Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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.

Really? What is a trap/inform but a "call home" by another
name?

In answer to Margaret's question about how it would know
where to "call home", it seems to me to be about the same
problem as with traps/informs. I haven't had anything to do
with this wg, but it seems pretty plausible that you'd
initiate the session from the agent using a trap/inform
over tcp/ssh/whatever and then just reuse the connection
for subsequent pdu's sort of akin to http 1.1 reuse. It
would just all sort of fall out of the overall snmp
architecture.

		Mike

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf