RE: ISMS working group and charter problems

["Fleischman, Eric" <[e-mail]>]

>You are correct that, in the current plan, the ISMS model would be 
>TCP-based.  That is what I meant to state by saying "UDP and the 
>current SNMPv3 USM security mechanisms will still work".  ISMS will 
>be TCP-based, but UDP/USM will still work -- in fact, it will still 
>also be mandatory-to-implement for SNMPv3 compliance...  I did not 
>mean to imply that UDP/ISMS will work, or even that it will ever be 
>defined.

Yes, Margaret, we are tracking each other on that point. 

However, the nature of my objection was that I believe that this state
of affairs is unacceptable. Since I have concluded, for the reasons I
partially enumerated in my previous post, that historic SNMPv3 USM is
unusable for very large deployments, what good is devising an ISMS
supplement that is also partly/largely unusable for different reasons
(i.e., transport reasons (ISMS) rather than security reasons SNMPv3
USM))?

I believe that network management is too important a functionality to be
designed such that it can only be usable within highly confined
environmental constraints.

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