Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Eliot Lear" <lear at cisco.com>
> To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf at ietf.org>; <nanog at merit.edu>; <iesg at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10:37 AM
> Subject: ISMS working group and charter problems
...
> The addition of call home functionality won't represent a major
> architectural change to SNMP.  The major architectural change (if there
> is one) will be the use of SSH at all and the use of TCP.
...

Regardless of whether "call home functionality" as you defined it is
desirable, I disagree with the claim that it wouldn't represent a
major architectural change to SNMP.  For notification originators, it
is a quite natural extension, and I have no problem with it.  For command
responders, I think this would be a fairly significant addition to the architecture.
I'm neutral on the question of whether it is needed, and perhaps we only
differ in what we perceive as "major", but I think we need to be clear that
it would indeed require changing the SNMP architecture.

I also disagree that it is the use of SSH or TCP that results in the architectural
changes.  TCP use without "call home" (as in RFC 3430) requires no
architectural changes.

Randy




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf