RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]

["McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> 
> Ira,
> > If Netconf is not a _ubiquitous_ general replacement for SNMP
> > and other legacy configuration protocols for ALL network
> > elements, then it's not a critical system service - period.
> >   
> SNMP didn't start as a ubiquitous replacement for anything.  It's a
> mistake to make this decision based on popularity.  The question in my
> opinion is ONLY a matter of who can bind the port and what 
> impact it can
> have.  Now, arguably one could argue that if you get your process
> initiation order correct, this isn't a problem.  On the other 
> hand, if a
> process can be killed, then the problem recurs.  This to me is the
> technical issue.  It's not a political vanity.  If we were talking
> about, oh, say, the "talk" or "finger" protocols, I'd feel 
> differently...

Security through low-numbered ports is non-existent - this is old
thinking that certainly isn't reflected in many operating systems.
Security of local processes is NOT based on port numbers.

I stand by my 'political vanity issue' comment.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

--
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/>