Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Just to clarify:
> > The option
> > of SSH is mentioned in the architectural document, even though we did
> > not went to the glory details of all the options that were on the
> > table back then (TLS, SASL, DTLS, SSH). In fact, I fail to see how you
> > get the conclusion that we went down to zero drafts by the end of
> > IETF-63.
> 
> The four I had in mind were TLSM, EUSM, SBSM, and SNMP/BEEP.  Prior to
> the meeting the WG had ruled out the first three and during the meeting
> the fourth was also shelved, leaving none.

This does not match my recollection. My understanding was that the WG
decided prior to the IETF-63 that it will follow the transport mapping
security model (TMSM) approach, which was initially called "transport
layer security model" (TLSM). Under the discussion during the IETF-63
meeting were the selection of transport layer security protocols that
could be used, such as TLS, SSH, DTLS, and BEEP. This is inline with
what <draft-kaushik-isms-btsm-01> says:

   This document leverages the TMSM framework and describes the use of
   the BEEP for securing SNMPv3.  This specification describes BEEP
   Transport Mapping Security Model.

I don't think BEEP was even on the table when the discussions between
EUSM, SBSM and TMSM was made - at least it is not mentioned in the
evaluation document <draft-ietf-isms-proposal-comparison>.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

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