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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf