At 09:14 AM 9/8/2005, Juergen Quittek wrote:
--On 9/7/2005 6:49 PM -0400 Sam Hartman wrote:
"Fleischman," == Fleischman, Eric <eric.fleischman@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Fleischman,> I believe that network management is too important a
Fleischman,> functionality to be designed such that it can only be
Fleischman,> usable within highly confined environmental
Fleischman,> constraints.
"must work everywhere," is a highly constraining environment.
We should consider that ISMS is about integrating SNMP into user
and key management systems. Such system usually operate over TCP.
You mean like RADIUS? That's a UDP protocol.
In a highly damaged network ISMS might not be able to help you even
if you had stuck to SNMP transport over UDP.
So you're arguing we should not bother with the ISMS effort?
You certainly may revisit the UDP vs TCP decision on the IETF list;
doing so is an appropriate last recourse under our process.
However I do not believe it likely that you will get IETF consensus on
a specific UDP direction. I also do not believe it would be
productive to take this issue back to the working group. So, I ask
what you believe I should do if you fail to get consensus? If your
options are no ISMS or ISMS over ssh, which would you pick?
The consensus in the WG on this issue was not really rough,
but rather broad and clear.
Based on your email, the consensus of the group is that TCP is good
enough, since it'll only be interesting to manage networks that are
operating cleanly. I can't imagine that's what the WG really
concluded, but that's how your email reads.
Thanks,
Juergen
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf