Re: [Isms] wg last call followup - e-mail address

["David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>]

H Jeff,

I am finding some inaccuracies in your statements. Please check the
drafts before making statements, please, so we do not get off into the
weeds.

inline. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: isms-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:isms-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Hutzelman
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:36 AM
> To: tom.petch; Juergen Schoenwaelder; isms at ietf.org
> Cc: jhutz at cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: [Isms] wg last call followup - e-mail address
> 
> --On Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:58:40 PM +0100 "tom.petch" 
> <cfinss at dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> 
> > What I think essential is an expanatory paragraph, much 
> earlier, 

agreed.
The definition of the format is in the MIB. An exlanatory paragraph
earlier would be helpful. I didn't realize we didn't have it discussed
adequately.

> in tmsm
> > even (thinking that another transport model might find a 
> use for this)

this is specific to SnmpSSHDomain and SnmpSSHAddress
The only transport model that should process SnmpSSHDomain is the
SSHTM.

> 
> Well, we're not going to have a paragraph like that, because it
takes 
> totally the wrong tone.  The feature is present because it 
> _does_ need a 
> requirement and is needed.  But yes, there should be a 
> paragraph describing 
> the transport address format; I'm surprised if that's not in there.

If you had looked, you would have found it in the MIB.

> Then you're not going to understand, because it's not 
> intended for that use 
> case.  It's specfically for the case of a Notification 
> Originator as an SSH 
> client, where the SNMP securityName names the recipient of the 
> notification, not the originator.  

I think that is a misstatement. Per RFC3411 modularity, any
application should be able to use that format of domain/address. A CG
could use this format just as well as a NO can. The proxy application
defined in RFC3413 should be able to use this format just as well as a
NO. 

> In this case, using the 
> securityName as 
> the SSH username is almost certainly the _wrong_ thing to do, and
the 
> user at host transport address format provides a way to specify 
> the correct 
> username (which in fact likely has nothing to do with any 
> other identity 
> that SNMP knows about).
> 
> -- Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Isms mailing list
> Isms at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
>