Subject: Re: [Isms] meeting agenda?

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:23:11 -0500

>Do we have a agenda thought out yet?  There isn't one on the agenda
>page yet.  The obvious topics are probably protocol overviews (I'm not
>sure they're worth the time or not since we've been briefed a bunch at
>both BOFs), requirements discussions, requirements evaluation and
>selection process, and, of course, everyone's favorite: the brawl.

Here's what Juergen and I have so far.  Comments welcome (yes, I know
there isn't much time to comment on it; my apologies for the delay).

--Ken

Integrated Security Model for SNMP WG (isms)
IETF #61
November 7, 2003 : 0900 - 1130
============================================

Chairs:  

Ken Hornstein   <[email-masked]>
Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:

  1) Agenda bashing, WG Status                ( 5 min)

  2) Decision process                         (45 min)
     - security model requirements
     - evaluation criteria
     - evaluation procedure

  3) Proposal presentations                   (30 min)
     - TLSM - Transport Layer Security Model

  4) Proposal updates                
     - SBSM - Session-Based Security Model    (15 min)
     - EUSM - External User Security Model    (15 min)
     
  5) Discussion of proposals                  (30 min)  

  6) Wrap up                                  (10 min)
     - action points, schedule for evalaution

INTERNET DRAFTS:

Transport Layer Security Model (TLSM) for the Simple Network
Management Protocol version 3 (SNMPv3)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schoenw-snmp-tlsm-00.txt

A Session-Based Security Model (SBSM) for version 3 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardaker-snmp-session-sm-03.txt

External User Security Model (EUSM) for version 3 of the Simple 
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaushik-snmp-external-usm-00.txt

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:32:50 +0100

Wes and all,

Please find the agenda that Ken and I discussed at

<ftp://ftp.netlab.nec.de/pub/isms_ietf61_agenda.txt>

Of course, suggestions for changes are welcome and can be discussed
at the beginning of our session.

Then we can also discuss if we want to talk about the decision
process before we hear the presentations on the three proposals
or after them.  I think it is better to discuss the process first.
This gives the proposers a chance to address some decision process-
related issues in their presentations that are not addressed by the
respective I-Ds.

We have not yet received a presentation of TSLM.  Therefore, the
agenda has a 30 minutes time slot for this model.  For the other
two models, just updates in 15 minutes time slot should be sufficient.

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de

--On 29.10.2004 23:10 Uhr -0700 Wes Hardaker wrote:

> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Sparta

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:44:22 -0500

Is there a written proposal for the evaluation process/guidelines? 
That would probably be helpful, although other WGs have learned that
it is difficult to write evaluation "requirements" that are unbiased.

dbh

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Juergen Quittek
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:33 AM
To: Wes Hardaker; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isms] meeting agenda?

Wes and all,

Of course, suggestions for changes are welcome and can be discussed at
the beginning of our session.

Then we can also discuss if we want to talk about the decision process
before we hear the presentations on the three proposals or after them.
I think it is better to discuss the process first.
This gives the proposers a chance to address some decision process-
related issues in their presentations that are not addressed by the
respective I-Ds.

We have not yet received a presentation of TSLM.  Therefore, the
agenda has a 30 minutes time slot for this model.  For the other two
models, just updates in 15 minutes time slot should be sufficient.

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221
90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221
90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
http://www.netlab.nec.de

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:48:02 -0500

Hi,

I will post an updated revision of the TLSM proposal to the list by
Wednesday. I have done a substantial amount of work on the proposal.
I recommend people don't bother to read the current TLSM proposal,
because it is extremely preliminary and incomplete. 

dbh

-----Original Message-----

Wes and all,

Thanks,

    Juergen