Subject: [midcom] MIDCOM Protocol Semantics <-> SNMPv3

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:55:47 +0100

Dear MIDCOM experts

The "semantics draft" is now going for informational RFC in my
understanding. SNMPv3 was recommended as MIDCOM protocol end of last
year to my knowledge.
I'm wondering whether
(1) SNMPv3 is used as "MIDCOM protocol syntax" for the "MIDCOM Protocol
Semantics"?
and
(2) if yes, will there be an additional "MIB plane" for provisioning
midcom boxes (besides the dynamic configuration actions according
"MIDCOM Protocol Semantics")?

Thanks,
Albrecht Schwarz
ALCATEL

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

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:03:37 +0100

Hi,

| Dear MIDCOM experts
|
| The "semantics draft" is now going for informational RFC in my
| understanding. SNMPv3 was recommended as MIDCOM protocol end of last
| year to my knowledge.

Yes, it is. SNMPv3 is the MIDCOM protocol.

| I'm wondering whether
| (1) SNMPv3 is used as "MIDCOM protocol syntax" for the "MIDCOM Protocol
| Semantics"?

The MIDCOM protocol will be implemented as a MIB module.

| and
| (2) if yes, will there be an additional "MIB plane" for provisioning
| midcom boxes (besides the dynamic configuration actions according
| "MIDCOM Protocol Semantics")?

That's a question to the WG chair.

 Martin

Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
PGP Key at:        http://www.stiemerling.org/stiemerling_nec.gpg
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:33:52 -0500

> That's a question to the WG chair.

I think it's actually a question for somebody else.  Provisioning
is clearly out of scope for this working group.  There's not any
work going on that I'm aware of (modulo the NAT MIB, which is NAT-
specific).

Melinda

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:47:30 +0100

Melinda,

At the design team discussions in Minneapolis we found that
we can group the requirements for the MIDCOM MIB.

There are the requirements defined by the MIDCOM semantics.
The semantics include some lately added features suggested
by Suresh reflecting the existing NAT implementations.  These
requirements constitute one group, the MIDCOM protocol group.

Beyond these, there are requirements that are not written down yet.
Suresh said that a network management applications would require
to get detailed information on which policy rule is liked to what entry
in the NAT MIB. As far as I understood, David was in line with this.
Wes told us that we need to add some means allowing a management
application to set the firewall priority of MIDCOM policies in firewall.
These requirements constitute a group that Martin and I call MIDCOM
server management requirements.

Shall we include these requirements that are not yet written down in
the MIDCOM MIB or shall we exclude them?

I think there are good reasons to support them although they are
rather on the 'MIB plane'.

    Juergen