Re: [10] Re: Towards Rough Concensus and Running Code

[Keith McCloghrie <[e-mail]>]

 
> > Proposal:	SNMPv2+USEC
> > Auathors:	Galvin, McCloghrie, Rose, Waters
> 
> > 		[10] draft-kzm-snmpv2-adminv2-alt-00.txt
>
> I suggest throwing this out, its purpose is questionable.  It reminds
> me of the mound of extra information in the origional SNMPv2AM drafts.
> 
> [11] says what needs to be said for your proposal.  

Assuming [11] is draft-kzm-snmpv2-sec-alt-00.txt, then it's true that
it contains just about all the *new* material of SNMPv2+USEC.
However, we propose a set of documents which, taken together, would
constitute a total replacement for the WG's latest set of I-Ds.

The 31 May version, draft-ietf-snmpv2-adminv2-ds-02.txt, of the Admin
Infrastructure document is the latest produced the WG's editor.
For this document, our proposal is to replace it with [10].

If you are suggesting that [10] is not needed because
draft-ietf-snmpv2-adminv2-ds-02.txt is still needed, then I disagree.
draft-ietf-snmpv2-adminv2-ds-02.txt discusses parties and our proposal
doesn't have parties.

If you are suggesting that neither [10] nor
draft-ietf-snmpv2-adminv2-ds-02.txt are needed, then I still disagree.
There needs to be a document to introduce the concept of security models,
and specify the parts of the admin infrasturcture which a security model
cannot change, such as views, proxy, contexts, etc.  People complained
about the difficulty of understanding the SNMPv2 RFCs; the Overview
section of the admin document provides a high-level introduction.

if you mean something else, I don't understand.

Keith.