Re: [Isms] charter proposal

[Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>]

Hi Juergen,

I have major problems with the way things went yesterday.

The group decided to reject out of hand SNMP/BEEP without any comparable
SSH draft.  I think this is both unreasonable and unwise, especially
given the time frame the ADs are pushing.

What I know:

 - There was general agreement in the room that "call home"
   functionality was a good thing to have.

 - There was general preference for a single mechanism between NETCONF
   and SSH.

 - Of the humm that occurred favoring SSH, the operators and at least
   those I know to be interested vendors indicated a preference for
   BEEP.

 - NETCONF/SSH specifically excluded "call home" functionality.

 - There is no specification for SNMP/SSH.

In our haste to create a solution that integrates with other security
solutions we are producing something that won't integrate with other
network management solutions.

Now you could say that perhaps the NETCONF/SSH specification should have
"call home" added to it.  The reason Margaret didn't include it was that
she felt if you wanted that sort of thing, use BEEP.  That was her
logic.  It's not unreasonable.

I have no problem working through the issues that separate BEEP and SSH.
 But to have prematurely made the decision is, I assert again, unwise.

Eliot

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