>>>>> "David" == David B Harrington <ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
David> Hi, As primary editor of the SSH draft (SSHSM), I spoke
David> with Eliot last week. I agree that it is difficult for him
David> to develop a reasonable proposal that piggybacks on the SSH
David> draft, because the SSH draft is so incomplete.
David> I am not convinced that SNMP needs to add a new call-home
David> (CH) functionality, nor that this feature is needed in SNMP
David> now, but there is a danger that CH might never be possible
David> if we don't consider its impact on the SSHSM model before
David> SSHSM is cast in stone. If it complicates the SSHSM model,
David> I would prefer to not include it; a new model could be
David> developed to replace or supplement the SSHSM model if
David> demand increases for this functionality.
David> I recommended to Eliot that he contribute some text for the
David> SSH document, describing the CH functionality and proposed
David> elements of procedure, that I could include as an appendix
David> to the SSHSM document so the WG could review his proposal,
David> and then the WG could decide whether it should remain as an
David> appendix, be incorporated into the SSH document, be split
David> out as a separate document, or be abandoned altogether. I
David> felt this was a reasonable alternative to making the
David> decision whether CH is or is not in scope at this time. He
David> has not yet had a chance to develop the text and send it to
David> me.
I completely agree that having Eliot and other interested parties work
on how technical details of CH would work for ssh is a good idea.
I also agree that having it be an appendix in the document is fine for
now.
I was hoping that Eliot would go forward in this direction; in my
original message ruling CH out of scope I aske Eliot to work with the
ssh document editor to see how CH might work.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf