Re: [Isms] Transport protocol discussion

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks at dial.pipex.com>]

<inline>
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr at rtfm.com>
To: <dbharrington at comcast.net>
Cc: <isms at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Isms] Transport protocol discussion


> "David B Harrington" <dbharrington at comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some concerns about trying to select "the" ISMS transport
> > protocol; why are we trying to choose "the" transport rather than
> > trying to choose a security application (e.g. TLS, SASL, SSH) that
> > might incidentally be able to run over different transport protocols?
> > Or is that what is meant by "selecting a transport protocol"?
> >
> > If we talk about selecting one transport protocol (i.e. UDP vs TCP),
> > do we have new research with independently-verifiable statistics about
> > the reliability and performance of these protocols as a transport for
> > SNMP? If we don't have new info, I would consider discussing this for
> > the umpteenth time to be a waste of face-to-face meeting time.
>
> My $.02:
>
> The important transport question is whether support for datagram
> mode is a requirement. If it is, that substantially constrains
> the solution set--and potentially requires some more design work :)
>
> -Ekr
>

You've lost me here and I would like to understand.

I see SNMP applications as datagram, message out message(s) back, not stream,
not full duplex.  If we have a full duplex stream transport, then a SNMP-like
message exchange can be imposed on it, as the SNMP over TCP RFC demonstrates;
needs work, but can be done.

Tom PEtch


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