--On 6. september 2005 11:00 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
Attachment:
pgpigMIFkjjcb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf