Subject: [Isms] [[email-masked]: Re: please consider reviewing draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt]

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:42:21 +0100

Hi,

I am forwarding a message from Jeff Case who also was invited to
review the last call document. Note that Jeff is not on the ISMS
mailing list so please CC him in any followup discussions.

/js

----- Forwarded message from Jeff Case <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:23:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Case <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  please consider reviewing draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt
Cc: [email-masked]

hello juergen and dave

thanks for your note, juergen, and the invitation to review
your ID

[if you want the WG to see this, you will need to repost
this note to the list ... this "from" address is not a
member of the WG list]

per your request, i have taken a few hours to read
draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt and provide a few brief comments

i wish i could invest more time in a detailed review, but
that just isn't possible today

two major comments worthy of mention

1.  a project funded by a portion of the US government has
    been working for over a year on a project with goals
    that are somewhat similar to those of your efforts and i
    think it is possible that you and they are not aware of
    one another

    i would almost certainly get myself in trouble if i were
    to take the liberty of identifying them to you but unless
    you object (which i can't imagine), i will take the liberty
    of bringing your work to their attention and they can
    identify themselves and jump in and participate if they wish
    to [and are free to do so] ... if they are able to do so,
    i think you two sets of folks would both benefit from talking
    to each other and i want to encourage that

    the above referenced project has been in the implementation
    and evaluation phase for some time now, and as such, its
    maturity may provide some valuable lessons learned to be
    incorporated into the current draft (and i think their work
    could benefit from the strong architectural underpinnings
    found in your draft

2.  i mention this because the experience with the project
    causes me to question one of the draft's fundamental
    tenets -- that you can do what you want to do without being
    forced to compromise anything in arch, v3mp, and/or usm

    in particular, while your design probably works flawlessly for
    gets and sets, and might work for traps as well, it would
    be helpful if you could explain to me how informs work in
    a way that is consistent with the above specs
    (yes, i read and reread page 15 several times including the
    waffle words found therein but maybe i am just dense and/or
    missed something somewhere else)

for me personally, one of the most interesting things in the
draft is how your design validates something we productized
several years ago but took a step farther than your design ... the
product uses an encrypted tunnel (e.g., through an ssl hole in a
firewall), sends/receives traffic from manager apps to one or
more remote forwarder(s) inside the security enclave(s) (or the
DMZ), and can turn it back into an snmp packet which is
sent onward with a more traditional transport mapping, and any
one of the valid message model/security model combos (and vice
versa in the other direction)

so, i do believe that the more simple thing that the draft
attempts to standardize can be made workable (if it isn't
already as presently written)

i also do miss working with you guys and wish i had more
time to do so again ... happy new year

best,
jdc

[if you reply only to the list and don't copy me, i won't see it]

-----------
Jeff Case
Founder and Chief Technical Officer
SNMP Research, Inc.
3001 Kimberlin Heights Road
Knoxville, TN 37920
USA
+1 865 573 1434 (voice)
+1 865 573 9197 (fax)
[email-masked]
www.snmp.com

>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:53:02 +0100
>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
>To: Jeff Case <[email-masked]>
>Subject: please consider reviewing draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
>Hi,
>
>the ISMS working group is currently doing a last call on
><draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt>. The abstract says:
>
>   This document describes a Transport Subsystem, extending the Simple
>   Network Management Protocol (SNMP) architecture defined in RFC 3411.
>   This document describes a subsystem to contain transport models,
>   comparable to other subsystems in the RFC3411 architecture.  As work
>   is being done to expand the transport to include secure transport
>   such as SSH and TLS, using a subsystem will enable consistent design
>   and modularity of such transport models.  This document identifies
>   and discusses some key aspects that need to be considered for any
>   transport model for SNMP.
>
>It would be very helpful if you can review the document. Please send
>your comments or an indication that you reviewed the document without
>specific comments to the ISMS working group. It would be nice to have
>feedback by early next week (original last call deadline was set to
>January 8th).
>
>/js
>
>-- 
>Juergen Schoenwaelder		 {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

----- End forwarded message -----

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