--On 6. september 2005 11:00 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
(By the way, I am awestruck at the potential impact of changing SNMP from
UDP-based to TCP-based, given the extensive debates that took place about
this when SNMP was originally developed. Has THIS decision been subject
to adequate external review, preferably including a pass by the IAB?)
just a formality note (and dropping nanog and the IESG):
I believe that the ISMS WG's proposal is about ADDING the possibility of
SNMP over TCP, not about CHANGING SNMP to use TCP.
UDP will still work.
And I believe Eliot's concern is about letting the TCP session that carries
the SNMP PDUs be opened from the agent to the manager, rather than from the
manager to the agent (yes I know - this is SNMPv1 terminology, but I've
forgotten the SNMPv3 terminology); that is another feature that comes in
addition to what the group is apparently currently working on.
And just BTW: I find "call home" reasonable to specify too, once you've
done TCP. It's obvious enough that I think it will be added to
implementations whether or not we specify it, so we should have very strong
reasons not to do so.
I don't even believe you need to "turn" the session, since SNMPv3 doesn't
recognize the concept of a "direction" for a session.... just let the PDUs
flow....
Disclaimer: I, too, have not seen the charter being proposed, and I have
not followed the ISMS group. I have, however, once upon a time been
responsible AD for the SNMPv3 WG.
Harald
pgprDtXIRiYMj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf