Re: [Isms] #8: Do we need a mapping between the SSH key and SNMPengineID?

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Wed, 19 October 2005 09:23 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESAAv-0005YA-Jv; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:23:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESAAt-0005Vz-Hr for isms@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:23:55 -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 FAA01981 for <isms@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org ([69.25.196.178] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESAMa-0004rW-Jc for isms@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:36:02 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 23C40E0038; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
To: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Subject: Re: [Isms] #8: Do we need a mapping between the SSH key and SNMPengineID?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10510171005010.9177-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:23:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10510171005010.9177-100000@shell4.bayarea.net> (David T. Perkins's message of "Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:36:48 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <tslwtk9rhau.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: isms@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: isms@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group <isms.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms>, <mailto:isms-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/isms>
List-Post: <mailto:isms@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isms-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms>, <mailto:isms-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: isms-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: isms-bounces@lists.ietf.org

>>>>> "David" == David T Perkins <dperkins@dsperkins.com> writes:

    David>  3) In SSH, a server is identified by a transport address
    David> (SSH experts jump in if I've used the incorrect
    David> terminology) 

I'm not sure that the ssh protocol documents specify how servers are
named.  I think this may be a local matter.  It sounds from the
architecture document like servers are typically named by hostname,
but many implementations also name servers by IP address.

I'd appreciate a more specific citation to a claim that servers are
identified by transport address.

    David> and is authenticated via use of a public key
    David> pair (RSA or DSA).  (from draft-ietf-secsh-transport-24.txt
    David> and draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-22.txt)

And is often authenticated by a public key.  There is already another
standards track mechanism for authenticating servers:
draft-ietf-secsh-gssapi-keyex, which like the core ssh documents is
waiting in the rfc-editor queue.

Other mechanisms are possible.


>From this I conclude that anything in SSHSM that depends on the
particular way servers are authenticated will limit the applicability
of SSHSM.  It may be appropriate (and possibly even necessary) to
define ways of managing certain information based on particular
authentication methods.  It is desirable to avoid depending on
particular authentication methods and is probably desirable to be
conservative in accepting authentication method information that may
not be available from some authentication methods into architectural
elements in SSHSM or TMSM.

    David>  4) In SSH, a client is identified by a "user name" (from
    David> draft-ietf-secsh-userauth-27.txt, section 5) and is
    David> authenticated via a mechanism identified by a "method
    David> name". The typical ones are "publickey" and "password" (see
    David> draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-12.txt, section 4.8)


A client is authenticated by zero or more methods.  Method are in fact
named.


--Sam

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms