Subject: Re: [Isms] status and future of the isms working group

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:46:16 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
...
>Well, yes and no.  In isms, we retained the idea of 'no sessions', and I was
>interested to see in the most recent I-D ....  vacmAaaSessionID OBJECT-TYPE
>
>I always thought that SNMP had sessions, just that some of them were rather
>short, and I that that is another disconnect that took quite a lot of time to
>sort out in the isms work; it would have been easier if RFC3411 or RFC5590 had
>had sessions in the architecture.

The issue DID come up when the work that led to RFC 3411
was being hashed out.  "No sessions" was a much-trumpeted
bit of dogma left over from the OSI and CMIP wars.  No matter
how much having a concept of (even short-lived) sessions might
have made sense, it could not have survived the somewhat toxic
atmosphere that followed the SNMPv2* wars.

Randy