Subject: [Isms] clarification: protocol on the wire unchanged

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:33:52 -0800

You know, many people say its a plus to have the protocol on the wire
unchanged (IE, the security parameters format is still USM).  I've yet
to find someone that can explain the rational behind that?  Some have
argued code change required, but that doesn't make sense since you
have to write code to support the new integration with whatever the
new keying mechanism is.  I don't buy any argument that all such
integration code will be less than modifying the security parameters
fields in all cases (unless of you course you don't have a set of BER
routines available, but we all know everything does already).  In
short, all 3 protocols require new code in both the manager and the
agent.  Some of the protocols require new protocol extensions in other
protocols (EG EUSM's needed modifications to Radius) and new code in
the deployment base of those new protocols on both the manager and
the agent (err...  CG and CR) side of the transaction.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that we should change it if we
don't have to.  I fail to see the "advantages" that people state are
there for not changing it.

(especially since all solutions to date will require new security
protocol identifies anyway, so it's not like you can take any
solutions protocol and throw it through an unmodified SNMPv3 stack in
the first place (unless such a stack is already broken in that it
ignores the security protocol identifier in the packet today)).

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

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