From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Apr 4 01:02:32 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26775 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3464fe29835; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:04:41 -0600 (CST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id VAA10852 for agentx-list; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA10847 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g345qbu27191 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 23:52:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [192.11.222.161]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 60DFB1FF035 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 23:56:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from md6370exch001p.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-206-50.lucent.com [135.114.206.50]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g345tsZ05132 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by md6370exch001p.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:54 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: AgentX WG: New work items or close? Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:50 -0500 Importance: high X-Priority: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list 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 owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Apr 5 10:04:09 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06687 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35F2gR13087; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:02:42 -0600 (CST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id GAA05287 for agentx-list; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA05282 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35EqYm06366 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:52:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from wanderer.hardakers.net (adsl-66-127-127-226.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [66.127.127.226]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C3C251FF02E for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:56:10 -0600 (CST) Received: (from hardaker@localhost) by wanderer.hardakers.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g35EtfR02324; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:55:41 -0800 To: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close? References: From: Wes Hardaker Organization: Network Associates - NAI Labs X-Face: #qW^}a%m*T^{A:Cp}$R\"38+d}41-Z}uU8,r%F#c#s:~Nzp0G9](s?,K49KJ]s"*7gvRgA SrAvQc4@/}L7Qc=w{)]ACO\R{LF@S{pXfojjjGg6c;q6{~C}CxC^^&~(F]`1W)%9j/iS/ IM",B1M.?{w8ckLTYD'`|kTr\i\cgY)P4 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:55:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: ("Natale, Robert C's message of "Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:50 -0500") Message-ID: Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.5 (bamboo, i686-pc-linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list >>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 00:55:50 -0500 , "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" 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 owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Sat Apr 6 17:10:27 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16199 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 17:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g36M7YQ10740; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:07:34 -0600 (CST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA10132 for agentx-list; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA10127 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:58:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g36LuMt25229 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:56:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from mercury.mv.net (unknown [199.125.85.40]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B66720EFB8 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:59:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from ieee.org (bnh-7-13.mv.com [199.125.98.141]) by mercury.mv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/mem-20020217) with ESMTP id QAA15855; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:59:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CAF706C.77A91061@ieee.org> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 17:02:20 -0500 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Cc: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" Subject: Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" wrote: > > 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 owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Sat Apr 6 18:26:56 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16884 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g36NPfR16275; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 17:25:41 -0600 (CST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id PAA10270 for agentx-list; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:19:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA10265 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 15:19:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g36NHXv20371 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 17:17:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from vmmr6.verisignmail.com (vmmr6.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.147]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 942EF1FF009 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 17:21:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from vmms6.verisignmail.com (vmms6.verisignmail.com [10.166.0.148]) by vmmr6.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id DDU00010; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:20:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOB.AppliedSNMP.com (pcp829751pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.128.12]) by vmms6.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id DHV00028; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:20:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020406182254.01f73930@mail.AppliedSNMP.com> X-Sender: Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com@mail.AppliedSNMP.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:32:45 -0500 To: Mark Ellison From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close? Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com In-Reply-To: <3CAF706C.77A91061@ieee.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list 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. >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? 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. >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. Yeah, I agree...good point. Cheers, BobN >"Natale, Robert C (Bob)" wrote: >> >> 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 owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Sun Apr 7 08:20:17 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25720 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 08:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g37CJ4K20667; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 07:19:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id FAA20818 for agentx-list; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 05:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA20813 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 05:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g37C9dc26339 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 07:09:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mercury.mv.net (mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E277A1FF018 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 07:13:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ieee.org (xbnh-2-35.mv.com [207.22.38.35]) by mercury.mv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/mem-20020217) with ESMTP id IAA25825; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 08:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CB03870.8EEC3C29@ieee.org> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:15:44 -0400 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Natale Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020406182254.01f73930@mail.AppliedSNMP.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob- my comments and answers are inline...\\Mark Bob Natale wrote: > > 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. 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? > >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? > > 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? > 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. > 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. I also hope folks having opinions will post to this list! > >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. > > Yeah, I agree...good point. > > Cheers, > > BobN > Thanks Bob! Regards, Mark From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Apr 10 05:55:51 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14573 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 05:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3A9qif11670; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 04:52:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id CAA00485 for agentx-list; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA00480 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3A9exj23406 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 04:40:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mailhub2.liv.ac.uk (unknown [138.253.100.95]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 21C0C20EFE0 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 04:44:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ribble.server.csc.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.184.242]) by mailhub2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 16vEeM-0006K3-00; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:44:22 +0100 Received: from daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk (IDENT:root@daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk [138.253.185.91]) by ribble.server.csc.liv.ac.uk (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/LUCS-DTS-3.0M10) with ESMTP id KAA27009; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:44:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk (daves@localhost) by daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk (8.11.6/LUCS-DTS-3.0DL) with ESMTP id g3A9iGE06921; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:44:20 +0100 Message-Id: <200204100944.g3A9iGE06921@daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk> X-Authentication-Warning: daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk: daves owned process doing -bs X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Wes Hardaker , "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close? In-Reply-To: Message from Wes Hardaker of "Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:55:40 -0800." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:44:16 +0100 From: Dave Shield Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list 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. 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 D.T.Shield@csc.liv.ac.uk 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 From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Apr 29 20:09:54 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24004 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3U08hf14689; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:08:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA06223 for agentx-list; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA06003; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:58:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200204292358.QAA06003@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, disman@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: disman/agentx FTP site planned outage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - On Wednesday May 1st, 2002 sometime in the window from 19:00 to 20:00 Pacific Daylight Time, the host for the AgentX and DisMan working group's FTP sites will be re-booted. There should be no disruption to the mailing list. ------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------