Re: [Isms] SNMP over (D)TLS draft available for review - Groupcompliance statements for notifications

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

I think it makes sense to mandate them in implmentations, so they are
available if an operator wants to use them.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: isms-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:isms-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Donati Andrew-MGIA0477
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: Wes Hardaker
> Cc: isms at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isms] SNMP over (D)TLS draft available for 
> review - Groupcompliance statements for notifications
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:wjhns1 at hardakers.net] 
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> To: Donati Andrew-MGIA0477
> Cc: Wes Hardaker; isms at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: SNMP over (D)TLS draft available for review - Group
> compliance statements for notifications
> 
> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:01:05 -0400, "Donati Andrew-MGIA0477"
> <adonati at motorola.com> said:
> 
> DA> The tlstmCompliance module is not listing each group with a 
> DA> compliance description and was wondering if the implementation
of 
> DA> notifications are optional or mandatory.
> 
> The 4th mandatory group of the the "tlstmComlpiance" object is
> "tlstmNotificationGroup" which contains the
"tlstmServerCertNotFound"
> and "tlstmServerAuthFailure" notification definitions, which are the
> only two defined NOTIFICATION-TYPEs.  So they're definitely 
> listed.  Or
> are you indicating that there is no surrounding human-readable text
> describing the requirements?
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Cobham Analytic Solutions
>   
> 
> WH> Or are you indicating that there is no surrounding
human-readable
> text describing the requirements?
> 
> Yes.  They are indeed listed in the in the 'MANDATORY-GROUPs'
clause,
> but was looking for additional 'GROUP' and 'DESCRIPTION' clauses for
> each group.  The 'DESCRIPTION' clause can contain information 
> on whether
> or not the group is mandatory or optional to implement, as
illustrated
> in rfc2580.  When the discussion began on adding tlstm
notifications,
> there may have been some consideration of not making implementers
use
> them if they did not have a need for it and was wondering 
> what the final
> decision was.
> 
> - Andy   
> _______________________________________________
> Isms mailing list
> Isms at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
>