Subject: RE: [Isms] Agenda item

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:45:47 -0500

hi

It still sounds like a loophole left in the charter to me. But, even by your
accounts these additional 'improvements' are only a secondary priority but
are what seem to be preventing the working group from moving forward. 

I would propose the following

1) Confirm that wg consensus and its charter is to address additional
'needs' as a secondary consideration in the solution
2) Very quickly determine what this minimal set of 'needs' is
3) Move forward with eUSM since it seems to be the best choice to meet the
primary needs of the working group and see what changes are needed to
address these secondary 'needs'.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isms] Agenda item

>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:16:22 -0500 , "Sharon Chisholm" 
>>>>> <[email-masked]> said:

Sharon> I think you (and others) are reading too much into this one 
Sharon> sentence. The sentence is too ambiguous and should probably have 
Sharon> been caught when the charter was drafted. I don't think it was 
Sharon> intended as a blank check to solve whatever problems people 
Sharon> thought would be interesting to solve. Integrating SNMPv3 
Sharon> security into existing infrastructure (and improving operational 
Sharon> complexity) is the primary goal of this working group. I say 
Sharon> solve that first and then look at 'me too' problems.

Having helped write much of the charter, all the wording was fairly
carefully written and reviewed both by the WG and the IESG members. The
intent of the creation of the working group was to fix problems, and that
included integration (most importantly) and other security issues
(secondary).  However, it is not a blank check as the wording says "meet the
security and operational needs of network administrators".  IE, you can't
throw anything at it if it's not needed.  That "needs" word in there is
rather important.  I don't think the WG has come to consensus on what is
"needed" exactly however.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms