Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it
Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com> Wed, 14 September 2005 14:16 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EFY3r-0004E4-Ge; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:16:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EFIZQ-0000qK-OK; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:44:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28549; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:44:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dcn236-43.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.236.43] helo=wes.hardakers.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFIds-0002Fk-64; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:48:42 -0400
Received: by wes.hardakers.net (Postfix, from userid 274) id B254811D40F; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Organization: Sparta
References: <200509072021.QAA19324@ietf.org> <43252AE6.7000704@cisco.com> <tslhdcq2qdi.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <4325DCA2.2070400@cisco.com> <56410FF569BC2359E7BBA4E4@[192.168.0.112]> <432673E6.1020603@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:43:45 -0700
In-Reply-To: <432673E6.1020603@cisco.com> (Eliot Lear's message of "Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:38:30 +0200")
Message-ID: <sdr7bsfxta.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:16:28 -0400
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, isms@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Eliot> Wes received the obvious feedback that operators find SNMP Eliot> unusable with the USM model because they cannot integrate it Eliot> with their existing security infrastructures and there is no Eliot> denying that this is a real problem. But this is NOT the only Eliot> problem operators face with SNMP. FYI, there was a "other comments" field in the survey that the operators filled out. I just went back and reviewed everything entered into that space and no one asked for anything like the CH functionality, nor did they even mention NATs or firewalls at all. That being said, that wasn't the point of the survey and I do think the problem shouldn't be forgotten. I think we'd be stupid to let the work go forward and do something that deliberately prevented CH functionality from being usable in the ISMS/SSH draft. However, everything needs to be weighed and I do think we should make sure it's possible till we run into a problem. At that time we'd have to evaluate the choices to decide which was more important (the potential problem being unknown at this time of course). I'm not sure the charter needs to explicitly state that we must consider call home support. It sounds like there is enough energy to make sure we don't blow it. I would strongly object to anything that says we must support it, because as has been stated many times "that's not the point of the WG". At the same time, I think we'd be idiots not to at the very least leave room for it (but then, I think we're not being wise for dropping the consideration of a UDP solution too, so...) -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: [Isms] WG Review: Recharter of Integrated Sec… Keith McCloghrie
- ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix … Eliot Lear
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Juergen Quittek
- RE: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… David B Harrington
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Eliot Lear
- RE: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… David B Harrington
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Sam Hartman
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Wes Hardaker
- Re: WG Review: Recharter of Integrated Security M… C. M. Heard