Subject: [Isms] new drafts

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:43:06 -0400

Hi,

I have posted updates to transport-security-model-08 and secshell-11
documents. They should show up soon.

I tried to synchronize the documents, and address all the EOP changes,
but these tables and features represent a significant change from
previous revisions, so I am quite sure these are no longer almost
ready for WGLC.

In my estimation:
We have reached consensus on the need to be more explicit about what
is in the LCD, so I have provided a MIB for stored information for
each document.

We do not seem to have reached consensus on the need for mapping
tables in both TSM and SSHTM.
We do not seem to have reached consensus on what info has to be in
each MIB module.
We have a number of "features" related to mapping, and we do not seem
to have consensus on the need for these features, and whether they are
new or old features.

As a result, I left mapping tables in both documents so we have some
common ground for discussion of each MIB module and the supported
features.

Personally, I think having mapping tables in both the TM and SM is
overkill, and rather than simplifying SNMP by utilizing existing
security, we are making it even more complex to configure, including
the related notification tables.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:25:20 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: [Isms] new drafts

> documents. They should show up soon.

Indeed they have and worth waiting for:-)

> tables in both TSM and SSHTM.

I think that this is the key, show-stopping issue that should be focussed on and
driven to consensus.

The idea of having a mapping, to a model-independent form - I am thinking
primarily of (xxx)securityName - has been in isms from the start, if not before.
I believe that it remains necessary, even if all the reasons given are not that
easy to trace in the archives [eg Issue 32 October 2005].

But I have no attachment as to where it is done, so for me, a single table in
the transport model would be fine.

As I have said before, and still believe, the objections I have seen to this
approach have been mostly based on what is done where in the architecture but I
do not see that as a reason not to do it in the transport model.

Tom Petch