Juergen, Wes received the obvious feedback that operators find SNMP unusable with the USM model because they cannot integrate it with their existing security infrastructures and there is no denying that this is a real problem. But this is NOT the only problem operators face with SNMP. While the group focused on UDP-based solutions it made no sense to raise concerns about firewall and NAT traversal, because in my opinion UDP traversal would likely be no different for ISMS or non-ISMS. With TCP and SSH in particular, the group can reasonably deal with the problem with very little additional work, as I described. Because it can, it should. In other words, firewall/NAT traversal has always been a problem, but the choice of either SSH or BEEP could easily provide a means to address it. People have suggested a BoF on this subject. I am perfectly happy to hold a BoF in November on this subject if the WG and IESG are adamant that this work be done elsewhere. I suggest that it occur adjacent to the ISMS working group, so that people understand just the sort of changes that will be required between ISMS and this other thing. I would also agree with Dave that if the necessary work for CH turns out to be onerous in ISMS the the WG should reconsider. I just don't envision the premise of that statement being true. Eliot Juergen Quittek wrote: > Eliot, > > At the SBSM and ISMS BoF sessions at IETF 58 and 60 the need for > integrating SNMP into existing security frameworks was extensively > discussed. Wes presented the issue at NANOG and performed a survey > among operators. The output of all this work is the idenitfication > of a well founded general requirement for working on the integration > of SNMP into existing security frameworks in an IETF working group. > > Now you claim that solving this issue is technically wrong without > considering a different problem that you call "call home". Rather > you request adding the issue of solving the "call home" to the ISMS > charter. > > However, nobody raised this issue at the ISMS BoFs nor has the > issue been discussed in depth in the OaM area. But we should have > such a discussion before adding the issue to any IETF WG charter. > It looks like a good topic for a BoF session in the OaM area. > There we could find out the relevance of the problem and discuss > requirements for potential solutions. Also there we can identify > which working group would be the right one to deal with the issue. > > But until then, I propose that we let the ISMS group work on solving > its original problem. > > Thanks, > > Juergen > > > --On 9/12/2005 9:53 PM +0200 Eliot Lear wrote: > >> Sam, >> >> I believe the approach you have proposed is quite simply wrong. As an >> AD you're supposed to provide technical oversight and not simply hold a >> popularity contest. If you have technical questions or wish to >> challenge me on a technical point, I think that's fair game. >> >> As I've written, the path we are headed down technically will not work >> in the face of firewalls and NATs, and nobody has refuted this. >> >> Furthermore you've heard from a reasonably large customer (Boeing) as >> well as your predecessor on the prevalence of such middle boxes that >> demonstrates the complexity of today's environment and the need for this >> sort of functionality as part of the solution. >> >> You've heard from an author of SNMP that the major architectural change >> is the use of session based security and NOT CH, the same from the >> former O&M AD and IETF chair. You've heard from a service provider as >> well as numerous members of the community who see the problem. >> >> You may or may not have yet heard from other standards bodies but if you >> were to delay it is quite possible they will chime in since one was >> specifically interested in this sort of function. >> >> The amount of changes required to support CH cannot fully be ascertained >> until more of the the [Todo]s are filled in with Dave's draft, but I >> don't imagine the work would be much more than: >> >> - specifying how to initiate the connection and if necessary turn it >> - the identity used for requests received from command generators that >> did not initiate the connection along with potential prepopulating >> of various tables >> - an appendix of how the SNMP-TARGET-MIB would be populated >> - a discussion on when to initiate connections and what to do when >> they fail (mind you this is needed anyway regardless of CH) >> - security considerations involving firewalls, blocking, etc. >> - possibly one additional table describing the state of SSH peer >> connectivity (which probably wouldn't be bad to have anyway). >> >> Decide for yourself if you think this is a substantial amount of text, >> but I won't leave it to your imagination for long. I will attempt this >> week to post a derivative of the draft that Dave is working on to give >> people an idea of what the changes would be. >> >> Again it's difficult to diff an incomplete specification. >> >> Eliot >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> Eliot> I request an extension of the deadline for comments to >>> Eliot> September 21st on the following basis: >>> >>> Eliot> - the period of comment has been less than a week, far >>> Eliot> shorter than the normal period of IETF-wide review. - of >>> Eliot> the time allotted, the principle instigator of this review >>> Eliot> has been absent from debate for five days due to prior >>> Eliot> commitments. That was me. >>> >>> Hi, Eliot. I have not made any determination as yet about whether I >>> will pull ISMS from the Thursday telechat and am unlikely to make a >>> final determination until the time of that telechat. >>> >>> >>> When I originally ruled call home out of scope I gave you some >>> suggestions for how to approach things from a process standpoint. In >>> evaluating your request I will consider how much progress has been >>> made on these issues so far and on whether it is likely that you could >>> make additional progress on these issues by September 21. >>> >>> Let us go back and consider my original advice to you: >>> >>> When the charter is sent to me for IESG review, ask me to send it out >>> for external review (IETF wide) rather than just approving it; I will >>> honor such a request. You will need a proposal ready to present to >>> the community when the charter comes out for review. The proposal >>> should include proposed modifications to the charter to make call home >>> in scope. In addition you probably want to answer the following >>> concerns: >>> >>> * People believe that architectural changes to SNMP should happen in >>> the management not security area. Either convince them that this is >>> OK in the security area, propose moving the working group, or >>> propose splitting the work appropriately. >>> >>> * Address the concerns about the lack of MIBs and other facilities for >>> managing call home. Have a proposal ready for what is involved in >>> doing the work. >>> >>> >>> * Understand concerns Bert is likely to raise and respond to them. >>> >>> >>> >>> so, here are some specific questions related to our progress to date >>> on these items. Answering these questions will help me determine >>> whether extending the review period to September 21 is likely to be >>> productive. >>> >>> 1) Have you proposed a specific set of charter changes? Who has >>> supported these charter changes? >>> >>> 2) How have you addressed the specific concerns about the location of >>> the work ? Who has agreed with your proposed resolution? >>> >>> 3) Is there a consensus emerging that CH needs to be solved as part of >>> ISMS? This is the part where additional time is most likely to >>> help you, but I think it fair to ask who has supported blocking >>> ISMS on CH so far. Note that people who support CH but who >>> believe it could be done in a separate working group or who have >>> not expressed an opinion do not count. They may well count for >>> justifying support for a CH BOF or for justification of a >>> publication request for an individual submission adding CH to the >>> SNMP architecture. >>> >>> >>> 4) What response have you given to concerns about whether the >>> architectural extensions for CH are sufficiently well defined? Who >>> has supported this proposal? >>> >>> >>> >>> 5) How are your discussions going with Bert to resolve his concerns? >>> What about other key members of the management community who have >>> expressed concerns? >>> >>> >>> >>> Here's how I'm going to make a decision. I believe that in order to >>> get a change to the SNMP charter it is necessary to make significant >>> progress on all of these issues. I'm going to evaluate your answers >>> and consider whether I think the progress to date makes it likely that >>> you will have sufficient support for a new charter by September 21 >>> without significant opposition. In other words whether the community >>> and IESG can agree to the new charter by the end of the review period. >>> If the progress to date makes it likely that we're headed in that >>> direction, I'll grant the request. Otherwise I will ask the IESG to >>> approve the charter on Thursday. >>> >>> >>> There's an internal issue that may well prevent the charter from being >>> announced before the 21st even if no formal extension is granted. >>> >>> >>> --Sam >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isms mailing list >> Isms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf