Re: [Isms] Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Sat, 04 January 2014 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8580D1AE09B for <isms@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 12:27:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.788
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bmxN1LArRadf for <isms@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 12:27:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C4D1AE021 for <isms@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 12:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C72B20073; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 21:27:17 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id db668aL907ie; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 21:27:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1C920070; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 21:27:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id B1EE22A766E5; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 21:27:13 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 21:27:13 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20140104202713.GA31954@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>, isms@ietf.org
References: <28383_1388776489_s03JEmbo025276_20140103191449.12612.84849.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1388860129.9936.16.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1388860129.9936.16.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: isms@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard
X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group <isms.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isms>, <mailto:isms-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isms/>
List-Post: <mailto:isms@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isms-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms>, <mailto:isms-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 20:27:28 -0000

On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:28:49PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 11:14 -0800, The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> > the following status changes:
> > 
> > - RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID
> > Discovery)
> > 
> > - RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
> > (SNMP))
> > 
> > - RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple
> > Network Management Protocol (SNMP))
> > 
> > - RFC5591 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
> > (SNMP))
> 
> Wait, we're advancing TLSTM but not SSHTM ?

Yes. These documents are all Draft Standards. The SSHTM is at Proposed
Standard. There was no interoperability testing done of the SSHTM when
the RFCs listed above were advanved to Draft Standards because we did
not have enough implementations.

The procedural step to move these Draft Standards to Standards in the
new 2-level standards process I believe is very different from the
procedural step needed to move SSHTM to Standard. If there are
sufficient SSHTM implementations to do interop testing, fine. But I
think this would be a separate activity.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>