Subject: RE: [Isms] Agenda item

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:09:09 -0500

hi

Might I propose that it goes at the very end if there is time? It sounds
like a request to add new work to the charter, unless Dave meant he was
looking to raise some issues with eUSM (not USM) which he thought people
should be aware of before we take consensus to move forward with a selected
starting point to solve the two problems identified in the charter. Perhaps
he could clarify.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Juergen Quittek
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:55 AM
To: David T. Perkins; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isms] Agenda item

The agenda has already been posted, but it is not a tight one. It should be
no problem fitting in a 10 minutes presentation.

I take this as first issue for agenda bashing.

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de

--On 01.03.2005 17:17 Uhr +0100 David T. Perkins wrote:

> HI,
>
> I would like to add a 10 minute presentation about the problems of the 
> USM to the agenda.
>
> Thanks,
> /david t. perkins
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isms mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

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

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

---

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:30:21 -0500

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:09:09 -0500  Sharon wrote:
SC> Might I propose that it goes at the very end if there is time? It sounds
SC> like a request to add new work to the charter, unless Dave meant he was
SC> looking to raise some issues with eUSM (not USM)

If we are trying to provide something better than USM, then it would make sense
to talk about the problems with USM, to make sure the new model doesn't suffer
from any of the same problems...

-- 
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>

You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.

---

From: Sharon Chisholm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 9:29 -0500

The name of the working group is integrated security model - not improved.

According to the charter, we are not trying to provide something better 
than USM. There are two really important problems outlined in the charter 
which we were suppose to have made a lot more progress on by now.  I'd like 
to see us get back on track to solve those in a timely manner.  

Any other problem discussion should be framed in the context of a charter 
discussion

Sharon
___
Sent with SnapperMail
www.snappermail.com

...... Original Message .......
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:30:21 -0500 "Robert Story" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:10:02 -0500

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 9:29 -0500 Sharon wrote:
SC> According to the charter, we are not trying to provide something better 
SC> than USM. There are two really important problems outlined in the charter
SC> [...]

The charter says we are "creating a security model for SNMPv3 that will meet
the security and operational needs of network administrators." If USM doesn't
meet those needs, and ISMS does, then I think that qualifies as 'better'.

I think understanding why the existing security model does not meet these needs
would be informative. 'Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to
repeat it'.