IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isms] RFC 5953 interoperability report

Robert Story <Robert.Story@cobham.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Robert.Story@cobham.com>
X-Original-To: isms@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isms@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4877528C1D1 for <isms@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.238
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.361, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S+lCiaq-g2mK for <isms@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B36828C0F1 for <isms@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id oBFH8OZu030770; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:08:24 -0600
Received: from mailbin2.ads.sparta.com (mailbin.sparta.com [157.185.85.6]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBFH8OYu027964; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:08:24 -0600
Received: from sparta.com ([76.122.68.129]) by mailbin2.ads.sparta.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:19 -0500
From: Robert Story <Robert.Story@cobham.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Message-ID: <20101215120819.127dcdab@sparta.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101215073635.GE12099@elstar.local>
References: <20101213115544.32cdf17f@sparta.com> <20101215073635.GE12099@elstar.local>
Organization: SPARTA
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Sig_/QWLlXoTNpd6CQINBvdyrnHZ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2010 17:08:24.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[AEF97BC0:01CB9C7A]
Cc: isms@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isms] RFC 5953 interoperability report
X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group <isms.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:43 -0000

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:36:35 +0100 Juergen wrote:
JS> thank you very much for the report. I assume the implementation use
JS> RFC 5591 (which relies on RFC 5590) and likely they also use RFC
JS> 5343. Will there be separate interoperability reports for these
JS> specifications as well or is the plan to expand the scope of the
JS> report to cover these RFCs as well?

Separate reports are in the works..

JS> Concerning the security level mapping, it seems that this was not
JS> implemented and left to be added if there is demand for supporting
JS> weak cryptography in TLS. So is this a feature that perhaps is not
JS> needed?

Net-SNMP does plan on implementing it. The problem with removing it is
that 'weak cryptography' is a moving target. We want to have the
ability to do the mapping in place before it's needed.

JS> Another question: Are you aware of any real-world deployments of SNMP
JS> over TLS?  RFC 2026 also calls for "sufficient successful operational
JS> experience" to advance to Draft Standard level.

I'm going to let Wes field this one.

-- 
Robert Story
Senior Software Engineer
SPARTA (dba Cobham Analytic Soloutions)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email