Subject: [Isms] Limited time to charter

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:58:57 -0400

Hi, folks.

I'd like to draw your attention to our remaining milestone:

   Aug 05    Working group will recharter to include publication goals
      or shutdown if no consensus on a technical direction is reached by
         this time

August is fast passing us by and we don't have much time.

I'd like to recommend to the chairs that they consider tools available
for increasing the speed of our discussion.  In particular it may be
appropriate to set up conference calls, IM sessions or other more
realtime communications channels to work through issues.

I know there had been some discussion of an interim meeting.  So far,
I don't see that an interim meeting is all that likely to resolve the
types of concerns currently being discussed and so I am reluctant to
approve such a meeting.  I will however consider proposals for such a
meeting particularly if people can explain what we could accomplish
with an interim that we are not accomplishing on the list.  I will
probably not be able to attend the meeting myself because of limited
travel funding but could participate by phone.

Keep in mind that interim meetings must be approved 30 days in advance
and that both Bert and I believe dragging things out past September is
unacceptable.  

While I remain optimistic that we can come to consensus, I must now
entertain the very real possibility that we will fail to come to
consensus.  Please consider this message the formal consultation
required prior to termination of a working group under section 4 of
RFC 2418.  At this time it is my opinion that absent an interim meeting
we must choose a technical direction by the close of August.  If that
does not happen this working group will close.  I will consider
changes in this time table but currently do not see circumstances
under which I'm likely to agree to such a change.

Sam Hartman
IETF Security Area Director

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

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:33:13 -0400

Hi,

As stated in another message, I think that discussing SSH vs RADIUS vs
PKI vs local accounts is thinking too much about the protocols, and
not enough about the high-level problem of leveraging security
infrastructure in complete network management **systems**.

However, to solve the integration issue, we really need to understand
how to step-wise integrate from one portion to the next until we have
a solution that ties in the security infratsructure all the way from
the application framnewokrs down to SNMP-specific mappings to
securityModel, securityName, and securityLevel.

I believe that getting the mappings between SNMP and SSH (or any other
next-hop protocol) provides one link in the many steps that need to be
resolved. Then we need to discuss how SSH will link to AAA and/or
local accounts, and then how the AAA protocols will integrate with the
applications. 

I am working on exploring how to establish the SNMP-to-SSH glue. I
encourage oythers to work on how to define the glue between SSH and,
say, RADIUS or whatever your favorite security infrastructure is. In
that way we will make progress.

If the members of the WG spend their time having theoretical
discussions, and nobody is willing to actually write anything down,
and do the thorough research necessary to provide the glues between
pieces, then we're just spewing hot air and never delivering product.
If that's what the members of this WG (and other O&M WGs) want to
spend their doing, I suggest the question they should be mulling over
is which other standards-development-organization will define the next
generation of network management protocols, because it surely won't be
the IETF.

David Harrington
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isms] Limited time to charter
> 
> 
> Hi, folks.
>

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:38:22 +0200

To quote from the Paris draft minutes

(JQ) How is the current state of the WG. Hand waving on three approaches:
     TLS+SASL: 5 raised hands (including jabber)
     SSH: big majority in room
     BBEP: 7 raised hands (including jabber)

>From this, I was expecting that the WG chairs would make a call on this list for
support for the view in the meeting, so that at least some possible paths
forward
were eliminated.

Tom Petch

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:46:22 +0200

Tom,

I fully agree.  I already stated at the SAAG meeting that we need
approval from the list for this decision.

    Juergen