Subject: RE: [Isms] RE: Call for consensus

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:46:19 -0400

Keith McCloghrie writes...

> If a TCP-based transport mapping has the
> limitation that coldStart and many other types can not be sent
> securely unless a manager already has a connection open to the
> agent, then I would suggest the WG should change its mind and
> reinstate UDP-based transports.

Is the issue solely the initiation of a TCP connection (session), or is
the requirement to establish a security association equally at issue?
For example, if we were to use DTLS would notifications be easy to
implement, while they would be hard(er) using TLS?

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:22:35 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Keith McCloghrie" <[email-masked]>; "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:46 AM
> Subject: RE: [Isms] RE: Call for consensus
>

> implement, while they would be hard(er) using TLS?
...

Let's look to the details in order to understand the larger picture.

For outgoing notifications, there are existing MIB modules defining
the information that would be needed in order to know whom to call
and what credentials to use, and the decision that a notification should
be sent establishes that it's time to make the call.  (Though not when
to close the connection due to, for example, lack of activity.)

For setting up a connection "in order to be managed", we do not
*currently* have any MIB modules that tell the engine whom to call,
and nothing that would tell it when to call, or how persistant to be
in trying to make the connection.

Randy