RE: ISMS working group and charter problems

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>]

Hi Eric,

At 12:04 PM -0700 9/7/05, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
> At 12:26 AM +0200 9/7/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > > I believe that the ISMS WG's proposal is about ADDING the
> > > possibility of SNMP over TCP, not about CHANGING SNMP to use TCP.
> > > UDP will still work.
>
> > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret at thingmagic.com]
> > That is correct.  UDP and the current SNMPv3 USM security mechanisms
> > will still work.  They will also remain mandatory parts of SNMPv3.
>
> Whoa, now, Margaret. Your statement is technically accurate that
> traditional SNMPv3 USM will hopefully co-exist with ISMS indefinitely,
> and therefore SNMP-over-UDP will remain viable within the historic USM
> context. However, your statement is inaccurate within the context of
> this discussion, which is ISMS.

I didn't mean to mislead anyone.  In fact, I had to re-read your 
message and mine a couple of times to figure out what you were 
objecting to...

You are correct that, in the current plan, the ISMS model would be 
TCP-based.  That is what I meant to state by saying "UDP and the 
current SNMPv3 USM security mechanisms will still work".  ISMS will 
be TCP-based, but UDP/USM will still work -- in fact, it will still 
also be mandatory-to-implement for SNMPv3 compliance...  I did not 
mean to imply that UDP/ISMS will work, or even that it will ever be 
defined.

Margaret

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