Eliot> Wes received the obvious feedback that operators find SNMP
Eliot> unusable with the USM model because they cannot integrate it
Eliot> with their existing security infrastructures and there is no
Eliot> denying that this is a real problem. But this is NOT the only
Eliot> problem operators face with SNMP.
FYI, there was a "other comments" field in the survey that the
operators filled out. I just went back and reviewed everything
entered into that space and no one asked for anything like the CH
functionality, nor did they even mention NATs or firewalls at all.
That being said, that wasn't the point of the survey and I do think
the problem shouldn't be forgotten. I think we'd be stupid to let the
work go forward and do something that deliberately prevented CH
functionality from being usable in the ISMS/SSH draft. However,
everything needs to be weighed and I do think we should make sure it's
possible till we run into a problem. At that time we'd have to
evaluate the choices to decide which was more important (the potential
problem being unknown at this time of course).
I'm not sure the charter needs to explicitly state that we must
consider call home support. It sounds like there is enough energy to
make sure we don't blow it. I would strongly object to anything that
says we must support it, because as has been stated many times "that's
not the point of the WG". At the same time, I think we'd be idiots
not to at the very least leave room for it (but then, I think we're
not being wise for dropping the consideration of a UDP solution too, so...)
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf