Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-hardaker-snmp-session-sm-00.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:31:24 -0400

Hi

I've only skimmed the draft, but I suspect a MIB to do cleanup may not be
the best approach. If things are setup using non-SNMP means, shouldn't tear
down be done that way?

If I understood things from my quick skim, I think I like the approach of
not using SNMP to set up the session since it avoids all the bootstrap
issues and is easier to sell to people who don't think they want to use SNMP
for configuration.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:30 PM
To: Golovinsky, Eugene
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hardaker-snmp-session-sm-00.txt

>>>>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:15:40 -0500 , "Golovinsky, Eugene" 
>>>>> <[email-masked]> said:

Eugene> For your TODO list. I think we also need to have a section that 
Eugene> allows management of sessions.

Yep.  It's actually planned for the MIB, and David Perkins has promised to
write a MIB to do a good number of the tasks you've talked about.

Eugene> Simply relaying on aging of the session or the key may not be 
Eugene> enough.

Agreed.

Thanks for the comments!  (and the feedback to let us know that you think a
management element is needed as well)
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:01:55 -0700

>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:31:24 -0400, "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]> said:

Sharon> I've only skimmed the draft, but I suspect a MIB to do cleanup
Sharon> may not be the best approach. If things are setup using
Sharon> non-SNMP means, shouldn't tear down be done that way?

The MIB is more for super-management.  The draft already supports
either side randomly dropping the session, and will support (IE, its
not there now) a notification mechanism to the other side that one
side intentionally dropped a connection.  This will all be
"within-SBSM-messages".  Greater ability may be controlled by the
accompanying MIB module, but the details haven't been worked out.

Thanks for the comments!

Sharon> If I understood things from my quick skim, I think I like the
Sharon> approach of not using SNMP to set up the session since it
Sharon> avoids all the bootstrap issues and is easier to sell to
Sharon> people who don't think they want to use SNMP for
Sharon> configuration.

That was the primary goal; reuse of existing authentication
mechanisms.  Things like password databases, radius, ... are all
heavily used and there is no reason they can't be used within SNMP as
well.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta