Re: Proposed Update to Netconf Charter

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> Andy,
>
> At this point, the only thing contemplated would be to make use of the
> same authentication mechanisms - not authorization mechanisms.  And the
> way that it is contemplated is through the use of BEEP, perhaps even
> sharing a BEEP session.
>  

I understand that -- the thought of making VACM or something like it
work for NETCONF is what concerns me.  Integrated authentication
sounds great until you get into the details, or until you read our charter.

It is going to be a tough sell to convince those of us in the WG that
don't care about integrating SNMP and NETCONF to compromise
or otherwise over-engineer a solution that accommodates other protocols
beyond NETCONF.

If somebody posted a draft containing a brilliant solution
to the problem I would probably change my mind.   But I
don't see any drafts (clueless or brilliant), so until then I don't
think integrated authentication is something this WG should do.

Andy


> Eliot
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
>
>  


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>