Subject: AgentX WG: New work items or close?

From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:50 -0500

Hi folks,

With the advancement of the AgentX specs to
Draft Standard status some time ago, we now
need to decide whether we want to take on any
new work items as an WG or ask the IESG to
close the WG until the time comes to review
the specs' qualifications for Full Standard
status.

The possible work items I know of that we
could incorporate into a revised charter
include:

   - Mechanisms for supporting the SNMPv3
     security features in AgentX...this has
     been discussed on the list in the past
     under the "security credentials" and
     "isAccessAllowed()" threads.

   - Process mechanisms for ensuring that
     IETF standard MIBs are written in such
     a way as to avoid constructs that
     prevent or seriously impede standard
     AgentX support (e.g., avoiding the use
     of scalar objects).  This might take
     the form of a new boilerplate section
     for MIBs called "AgentX Considerations",
     akin to the "Security Considerations"
     section currently required.  For vendor
     MIBs, this process would encourage
     AgentX supportability.

   - Any potential revisions to the specs
     that have surfaced since the implementation
     survey that we did prior to going to
     Draft Standard status that we will need
     to address for Full Standard status...
     might as well air these at the earliest
     possible point and come up with solutions.

   - Any other suggestions from the floor...?

However, we should undertake these new work items
*only* if there is sufficient interest in actually
working on them (writing, editing, reviewing,
commenting, coding, testing, etc.) among a reasonable
subset of the group.  Otherwise, we should ask the
IESG to close the WG.

So, if you are interested in working on any of
the above items in this forum, please post your
comments to the list within the next several days.
I'll aim for summarizing the response by the end
of next week (Fri 4/12) and making a recommendation
to the ADs for their consideration.

I have bcc:'d the "AgentPP" and "NET-SNMP" lists
on this notice since they have more AgentX traffic
than this list -- a good thing at this point! --
but please post all responses back to this list
alias only.

Thanks,

BobN
Chair

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:55:40 -0800

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:50 -0500 , "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <[email-masked]> said:

Robert> With the advancement of the AgentX specs to Draft Standard
Robert> status some time ago, we now need to decide whether we want to
Robert> take on any new work items as an WG or ask the IESG to close
Robert> the WG until the time comes to review the specs'
Robert> qualifications for Full Standard status.

Hi Bob,

I do think that a few things have surfaced over our course of using it
that would be nice if they were worked out.  Unfortunately, of course,
I don't remember what they all are on the top of my head.

The majority have centered around mibs that I'd liked to see possible
to be implemented within a subagent but aren't possible due to their
need for security credentials, etc.  (things like most of the DISMAN
mibs, the snmpconf PM MIB, etc).  Other problems have been centered
around the fact that it is not possible to query the master agent from
the subagent at all, which causes problems in a few cases that I also
don't remember off the top of my head.

I'll try and come up with a more complete and better specified list
when I get the chance.

Robert> - Mechanisms for supporting the SNMPv3
Robert> security features in AgentX...this has
Robert> been discussed on the list in the past
Robert> under the "security credentials" and
Robert> "isAccessAllowed()" threads.

Which would help one of the problems mentioned above.

Robert> I have bcc:'d the "AgentPP" and "NET-SNMP" lists on this
Robert> notice since they have more AgentX traffic than this list -- a
Robert> good thing at this point! -- but please post all responses
Robert> back to this list alias only.

The net-snmp lists by default don't allow bcc's, so I just approved
your note a few seconds ago.  Dave Shield and John Naylon are two of
our core AgentX developers, as you might know, are not available this
week but hopefully they'll be back next week and might have further
thoughts.

-- 
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will
 insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."   -- Terry Pratchett

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 17:02:20 -0500

Hi Bob,

I support your list of possible AgentX work items.  

I'm wondering if the original agenda item, "(optional) a programmatic
interface to the services offered by that protocol" is officially
dropped.  I don't know this is necessary.  Possibly others will have a
different perspective?

Also, with respect to work in the EOS and SMIng WG-  I think it best not
to take on any dditional AgentX work items until the EOS and SMIng work
product progresses beyond internet-draft.

Regards,

Mark

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:32:45 -0500

At 4/6/2002:05:02 PM, Mark Ellison wrote:

Hi Mark,

>I support your list of possible AgentX work items.  

Ok...good...we'll have to see if this feedback from
you and the comments from Wes, thus far, can be
turned into sufficient momentum to keep the WG open.
It's too bad that Wes, Dave Shield, and John Naylon
from the NET-SNMP list can come back soon with some
more specifics re the kinds of things they'd like
the WG to work on.

>dropped.  I don't know this is necessary.  Possibly others will have a

Well, it has not been officially dropped.  On the
other hand, there has not been a lot of push for
completing that work item coming from the WG.  When
you say that you "don't know this necessary", do you
mean you don't know whether it's necessary to drop
it or retain it?

To some extent, having the NET-SNMP and AgentPP groups
worked out their API implementations may be a good
thing here:  Do any AgentX developers who may have
used either or both of those APIs see a need to
standardize this technology in the IETF?  If you
have an opinion on that, I would appreciate hearing
it soon.

>product progresses beyond internet-draft.

Yeah, I agree...good point.

Cheers,

BobN

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:15:44 -0400

Hi Bob- my comments and answers are inline...\\Mark

> more specifics re the kinds of things they'd like

Well, by the time Dave and John are back, I'll be gone for the NOMS
conference, so I'm wondering if a one week period for comment is
sufficient to obtain the feedback we seek?

> mean you don't know whether it's necessary to drop

I don't think it is necessary to work on an AgentX API.  On the one
hand, it would be nice to have a consistent library mechanism across
platforms (and languages ??) supporting AgentX.  However, the API for
AgentX is but one of many pieces a subagent developer must port between
systems.  So feel its best to limit specification at the message level
for now.

> have an opinion on that, I would appreciate hearing

I also hope folks having opinions will post to this list!

> Yeah, I agree...good point.

Thanks Bob!

Regards,

Mark

---

From: Dave Shield <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:44:16 +0100

Robert> I have bcc:'d the "AgentPP" and "NET-SNMP" lists on this
Robert> notice since they have more AgentX traffic than this list

Wes>                           Dave Shield and John Naylon are two of
Wes> our core AgentX developers, as you might know, are not available this
Wes> week but hopefully they'll be back next week and might have further
Wes> thoughts.

Sorry for the delay in responding - I've now had a bit of a thunk about
this, so would offer the following comments.
  Please note that my main involvement was with the original coding,
and John's been doing much of the AgentX development recently (fixing
my mistakes!) So this is based on observation of mailing list traffic,
and abstract pondering - rather than being a view from the coalface.

  The main issue that's come up on the net-snmp lists is one of access
control.  i.e. authentication/authorisation between the subagent & master.
Using the SNMPv3 security features is related to this, of course, but
seems more concerned with the master->subagent information  handling.
It's not so immediately applicable to the subagent->master admin-style
traffic (e.g. is this subagent allowed to connect/register/etc).

   Such concerns can be handled to a certain extent using out-of-protocol
mechanisms (such as socket permissions, or tcpwrapper-style access lists).
But it's probably worth considering some form of (optional) in-band
validation process (passwords, challenge-response, kerberos, etc)

  The other area that sprang to mind was preparing for future
expandability.  Mark's already mentioned the possible impact of the
EOS and SMIng work.  And reading through the EOS discussions prior to
London, I felt a definite reluctance to adopt anything that wouldn't
fit into the existing AgentX structures (e.g. new data types).

  While stability is obviously to be desired, this shouldn't become
a total bar to advancement.  I wonder whether some form of "feature
negotiation" might be useful - analogous with the EHLO handshake of
extended SMTP.   That would free the EOS and SMIng people to extend
the protocol and data structures, without having to worry about breaking
all our fledgling AgentX implementations.

Those are the issues that come to mind immediately, anyway.

Dave
-- 
Dave Shield		      [email-masked]
Dept. of Computer Science,
Liverpool University,	     "He who brings [computers] on to his premises
PO Box 147,		      should be absolutely liable ... for any mischief
Liverpool, L69 7ZF	      that ensues."     Haddock v. Computer 1578/32/W1