![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
--On 9/7/2005 6:49 PM -0400 Sam Hartman wrote:
"Fleischman," == Fleischman, Eric <eric.fleischman at boeing.com> writes:
Fleischman,> I believe that network management is too important a Fleischman,> functionality to be designed such that it can only be Fleischman,> usable within highly confined environmental Fleischman,> constraints.
"must work everywhere," is a highly constraining environment.
We should consider that ISMS is about integrating SNMP into user and key management systems. Such system usually operate over TCP.
You mean like RADIUS? That's a UDP protocol.
In a highly damaged network ISMS might not be able to help you even if you had stuck to SNMP transport over UDP.
So you're arguing we should not bother with the ISMS effort?
You certainly may revisit the UDP vs TCP decision on the IETF list; doing so is an appropriate last recourse under our process.
However I do not believe it likely that you will get IETF consensus on a specific UDP direction. I also do not believe it would be productive to take this issue back to the working group. So, I ask what you believe I should do if you fail to get consensus? If your options are no ISMS or ISMS over ssh, which would you pick?
The consensus in the WG on this issue was not really rough, but rather broad and clear.
Thanks,
Juergen
--Sam
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.