On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
Just to clarify:
The option
of SSH is mentioned in the architectural document, even though we did
not went to the glory details of all the options that were on the
table back then (TLS, SASL, DTLS, SSH). In fact, I fail to see how you
get the conclusion that we went down to zero drafts by the end of
IETF-63.
The four I had in mind were TLSM, EUSM, SBSM, and SNMP/BEEP. Prior to
the meeting the WG had ruled out the first three and during the meeting
the fourth was also shelved, leaving none.
This does not match my recollection. My understanding was that the WG
decided prior to the IETF-63 that it will follow the transport mapping
security model (TMSM) approach, which was initially called "transport
layer security model" (TLSM). Under the discussion during the IETF-63
meeting were the selection of transport layer security protocols that
could be used, such as TLS, SSH, DTLS, and BEEP. This is inline with
what <draft-kaushik-isms-btsm-01> says:
This document leverages the TMSM framework and describes the use of
the BEEP for securing SNMPv3. This specification describes BEEP
Transport Mapping Security Model.
I don't think BEEP was even on the table when the discussions between
EUSM, SBSM and TMSM was made - at least it is not mentioned in the
evaluation document <draft-ietf-isms-proposal-comparison>.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf