Subject: RE: [Isms] Agenda item

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

hi

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

Sharon

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 9:29 -0500 Sharon wrote:
SC> According to the charter, we are not trying to provide something 
SC> 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'.

-- 
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. 

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

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:23:08 -0800

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