Subject: [midcom] Reminder: Comments due to list on draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval -00.txt by Monday June 10th, noon CST

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:57:56 -0500

Hi all,

Just a reminder that comments on the protocol evaluation draft are due by
noon on Monday, June 10th.  It's available at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-00.txt

The level of discussion on this draft by members of the WG has been rather
disquieting.  The draft is not incredibly long, with the new material being
primarily in the Overview and Conclusion sections. There are a also few
areas which definitely need discussion and WG feedback which are indicated
by [Contributor's note: blah...blah...blah] and [Editor's note:
yadda...yadda...yadda].  So, please try to set aside 30 minutes and at least
review those portions. The objective is for the draft to be fairly complete
and actually undergoing WGLC by the Yokohama meeting, so comments now are
definitely preferred over during the WG session or after the Yokohama
meeting.   

As a reminder, the remaining schedule for this WG draft is as follows:

June 14th       Second version of draft available. 
June 14th-June 21st  Mailing list discussion of version 2 of draft. 
June 28th       Draft ready for WGLC 
July 19th       WGLC ends 
July 26th       Updated draft based upon WGLC comments available 
July 26th- Aug (whether another iteration is required for WGLC depends upon 
                the extent of changes, etc.) 
Aug     Draft submitted to IESG 

Regards, 
Mary H. Barnes 
[email-masked] 
972-684-5432 
Wireless 817-703-4806

---

From: "Christopher A. Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:03:25 -0500

Reminder: Comments due to list on draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-00.txt by
Monday June 10th, noon CSTMary,
This is an excellent draft, very focused side by side review of existing
potential protocols for possible reuse in this effort. You pulled the WG
information together in a great way.

The draft offers a very objective comparison that provides the comparison of
each with the requirements of MIDCOM and each protocol under review.

I will be performing more indepth analysis of the results but believe that
you are right on the mark with your results from my first read.

I concur with the conclusions which indicate a better fit between SNMP and
DIAMETER than the other protocols reviewed, as well as the bulkiness of
DIAMETER as opposed to SNMP.

You know initially when I saw SNMP listed the first thing that came to mind
was the security issues associated with the legacy versions of the protocol,
but was glad to see that SNMPv3 was recommended.  The maturity, tools, and
ease of implementation make this a good fit as outlined in the draft.

Typically, due to security concerns, I would not want to permit write
operation, or third party control of a firewall or similiar class of
middlebox, but if we must go down this path, as MIDCOM is, then the
selection/creation of a suitable protocol must be made.

The fact that two of the three core security concepts are inlcuded for
consideration in this draft also adds to the security of the protocol and
future of MIDCOM. The two that I am referring to are of course
confidentiality and integrity.

Authentication is also key componenet and this is covered as it should be.
The third core security concept that we do not cover is availability, which
is another item that falls under redundancy/failover and maybe has been
disussed in the list, this I am unsure of since I have been absent for some
time due to resource issues but will be participating again.

I think the review and considerations found in this draft can accelerate
this process. I hope that more review and comments are made regarding this
draft ASAP. I will certainly give it a closer look over the weekend, but as
it stands from my initial review believe it to be very concise.

Chris
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Mary Barnes
  Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:58 PM
  To: [email-masked]'
  Subject: [midcom] Reminder: Comments due to list on
draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval -00.txt by Monday June 10th, noon CST

  Hi all,

  July 26th- Aug (whether another iteration is required for WGLC depends
upon

  Regards,
  Mary H. Barnes

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:55:31 +0200

Mary,

Here are my comments.

First of all I agree to the statement that where SNMP evaluation
depends on a proper MIB module definition, "partially met" should
be used.

1.1.3, 2nd paragraph:
  replace "The roles of entities participating in SNMP
  communication are called from the manager."
  by "The roles of entities participating in SNMP
  communication are called manager and agent."

1.1.3, 3rd paragraph:
  replace "Although he" by "Although the".

2.1.3 COPS, editor's note
  I think COPS meets this requirement. For example the
  RFC 3084 on COPS-PR exlicitly mentions this.

2.1: COPS in general
  I think it would be helpful to clarify, some COPS
  restrictions. For example RFC 3084 says: "When a
  (middlebox) device boots, it opens a COPS connection
  to its Primary PDP (Midcom agent)." This holds for
  each agent that wants to send midcom requests to the
  middlebox. The good point is that agent-PEP associtions
  survive power-failures. The disadvantage is, that each
  agent that intends to send midcom requests must be made
  known to the middlebox by means other than the ones provided
  by COPS.
  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

2.2.2, SNMP
  We can replace the very generic phrasing by a more specific
  one:
  "SNMP explicilty supports managing different device type
  with different capabilities. First the managed object called
  sysObjectID from basic MIB-II (RFC1213) identifies the
  kind of box. For boxes with varying capabilites, SNMP can
  check the availability of corresponding MIBs."

Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek     [email-masked]     Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,    Network Laboratories     Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Adenauerplatz 6, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.ccrle.nec.de

--On 06 June 2002 19:57 -0500 Mary Barnes wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a reminder that comments on the protocol evaluation draft are due by noon on Monday, June 10th.  It's available at:
>
> The level of discussion on this draft by members of the WG has been rather disquieting.  The draft is not incredibly long, with the new material being primarily in the Overview and Conclusion sections. There are a also few areas which definitely need
> discussion and WG feedback which are indicated by [Contributor's note: blah...blah...blah] and [Editor's note: yadda...yadda...yadda].  So, please try to set aside 30 minutes and at least review those portions. The objective is for the draft to be
> fairly complete and actually undergoing WGLC by the Yokohama meeting, so comments now are definitely preferred over during the WG session or after the Yokohama meeting.
>

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