Subject: [Isms] draft updates

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:16:01 -0400

Hi,

I intend to publish an updated draft before the document cut-off for
Dublin. If I can, I will publish it earlier than that.

I just changed divisions in my company. I am heading off to China for
a month starting June 10. The next two weeks I will be pretty busy
preparing for China. I expect to have some, possibly limited, time in
China to work on the ISMS drafts and other drafts I am editing, plus
any chair work I need to do.

I started looking at the drafts to see what should be updated relative
to the ongoing discussion. Unfortunately, I am not finding a lot to
update. The drafts represent what I believe has been, and remains WG
consensus - that the format of the LCD is implementation-dependent,
and processing related to the LCD and SSH remains
implementation-dependent. Most of what we are talking about is some
abstractions and possible details of implementation-dependent stuff. I
think it has been valuable for understanding how the problem can be
addressed by people developing implementation-dependent designs. 

I do think it would be really unfortunate to not have some of the
current discussion summarized in the document, possible in an
"implementor recommendations" section. But the discussion has
meandered quite a bit, and has had a lot of RFC3411-incorrect
explanations, so I'm not quite sure what to write at this time.
Cleaned-up proposed text is welcome.

It might be helpful to include an SSHTM-MIB as a sample LCD, but we've
started this and removed it and started this again and removed it. We
have not reached consensus what needs to be in the LCD. Even in the
current discussion, we have not reached any consensus on what the
"pointer into SSH config" must be able to represent. 

While the current discussion seems to be reaching consensus that
storing client credentials is acceptable for establishing a connection
for notifications, what those credentials look like are strictly
implementation-dependent. The standardized part of notification config
(target and params-mib config) is already described in the TSM
document, and the secshell document says that the SSH and LCD details
are implementation-dependent.

As far as the documents are concerned, I don't understand the edits.
We need to drive the discussion to be more specific about how the text
in the documents should be changed. 

I am not sure whether reusing an existing connection makes sense any
more. It has been WG consensus, but supporting both client credentials
and reuse adds unnecessary complexity. especially given some of
Pasis's comments. I am also not sure how all this works for informs
between two manager applications or between two agents, or if that
makes any difference. 

I think the WG needs to go through the documents closely, with RFC3411
modularity in mind, to determine what new text is needed, what text
needs to be changed, and whether the proposed approaches work in all
instances.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 5:00 AM
> To: David Harrington
> Subject: Re: FYI: my priorities
> 
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:30:55PM -0400, David Harrington wrote:
>  
> > In ISMS, we have about four difficult issues that have halted our
> > progress. Pasi and Wes Hardaker and Juergen and Joe Saloway 
> and Randy
> > and others have been making progress on resolving the 
> issues with the
> > SSH draft. As those issues get resolution, I will give my third
> > highest priority to getting a new draft published. I hope 
> to have one
> > done, and to make sure the other drafts are consistent with the
new
> > revision, by the Dublin meeting.
> 
> David,
> 
> some time has passed since this message and I am wondering whether
you
> will be able to revise the SSH document (and the other documents as
> needed) well before the next IETF. I believe the thread Wes started
> has been really helpful. But to make forward progress, we have to
turn
> the resulting ideas into concrete words that we all can review and
> hopefully agree on - so some updated document will be very useful.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 

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