Subject: [Isms] barely a review: secshell-08

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:24:38 -0700

I didn't get as far into it as I had hoped, but I do support the
document based on what I've read so far and think it's important work.

misc points:

introduction:
  Secure Shell Protocol => Secure Shell Protocol (SSH) [RFC4251?]

1.2:
  acting as either manager or agent or both =>
  acting in either manager or agent or both roles

  SNMP applications included in the engine =>
  SNMP application types being implemented

       (the SNMP applications don't sit in the engine, so the original
       wording doesn't meet the SNMP architecture).

  USM => User-Based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414]

  delete the last paragraph (todo markings)

1.3:
  design decision*s* => design decision

  These MIB objects SHOULD NOT be referenced in other documents

     That one kind of bothers me.  Generally in the IETF, we encourage
     cross-reuse among MIB modules and here you're specifically saying
     pretend this one doesn't exist if you're working on something else.
     I'm not really fond of that notion.  I do understand the rational
     for wanting to do it, but I don't think you gain anything in the
     end and you certainly loose the ability to do some possible future
     reuse.

1.4:
  USM typically utilizes => USM utilizes

  not deploying SNMPv3 at this point in time =>
  not deploying SNMPv3

  to minimize the time until deployment is possible =>
  to minimize deployment time

  4th paragarph, 1st sentence: does the work properly allow for future
  SSH extensions to add authentication capabilities (I believe it is
  supposed to).  If so, that should probably be noted in this sentence.
    
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.

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