Re: Callhome draft?

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for this clarification.

As I said in a previous email, this feature is generic
enough that the protocol-independent bits should be
done one way, in one document.

There are protocol-specific bits, like the impact on the
capabilities list in the NETCONF <hello>.

IMO we also need a standard "reason-for-calling-home" mechanism.
(Perhaps just a message, not rigid standard content).

The other features are just bells and whistles.


Andy

> Hi,
>
> It is unclear from your message just which proposal you refer to when
> saying Juergen presented a solution. I have seen a number of porposals
> considered in ISMS that relate to callhome, but none so far that solve
> all the problems.
>
> I don't believe that Juergen's proposal has been accepted by the ISMS
> WG yet. There is ongoing discussion about multiple approaches to
> session reuse and callhome functionality and data access controls that
> are related.
>
> As editor of the TMSM and SSHSM WG drafts, I believe the current
> consensus in ISMS is to permit session reuse regardless of whether the
> session was created as a R/R session or a notification session, in
> order to support a callhome functionality, if we can resolve the
> security issues presented by a client-server transport session versus
> the SNMPv3/VACM security requirements.  
>
> Stay tuned, but the ISMS "solution" is not yet ready to be the basis
> of the Netconf WG solution.
>
> David Harrington
> dharrington@huawei.com 
> dbharrington@comcast.net
> ietfdbh@comcast.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:22 AM
> > To: Andy Bierman
> > Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: Callhome draft?
> >
> > Hello,
> > On the IETF Jurgen in the ISMS group presented a solution. Do 
> > you propose we base our 
> > solution on that one? I feel it would be good. He had some 
> > problems with security but I 
> > believe those can be solved.
> > Balazs
> >
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was wondering if anyone is willing to be the Editor/author
> > > of 2 drafts to fully specify the Callhome feature for both
> > > BEEP and SSH.  I don't know if this would be Informational,
> > > Experimental, or standards track.
> > >
> > > If done correctly, not one sentence in the protocol or
> notification
> > > drafts will be impacted by the Callhome feature.
> > >
> > > IMO, the "southbound interface" for Callhome is 
> > application-independent,
> > > and should work the same for any protocol mapping to SSH or BEEP
> > > (BEEP already has this part).  The "northbound interface" of the
> > > Callhome mechanism is protocol-specific, and a mapping to NETCONF
> > > is needed. (NETCONF over BEEP already has this part.)
> > >
> > > I think there was interest at the Callhome BOF in a generic
> > > solution, but I hope this doesn't mean the problem will
> > > be abstracted so far away nobody ever works on it.
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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/>
> > --
> > Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
> > TSP System Manager
> > ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
> > Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.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/>


--
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/>