On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > Just to clarify: > > The option > > of SSH is mentioned in the architectural document, even though we did > > not went to the glory details of all the options that were on the > > table back then (TLS, SASL, DTLS, SSH). In fact, I fail to see how you > > get the conclusion that we went down to zero drafts by the end of > > IETF-63. > > The four I had in mind were TLSM, EUSM, SBSM, and SNMP/BEEP. Prior to > the meeting the WG had ruled out the first three and during the meeting > the fourth was also shelved, leaving none.
This does not match my recollection. My understanding was that the WG decided prior to the IETF-63 that it will follow the transport mapping security model (TMSM) approach, which was initially called "transport layer security model" (TLSM). Under the discussion during the IETF-63 meeting were the selection of transport layer security protocols that could be used, such as TLS, SSH, DTLS, and BEEP. This is inline with what <draft-kaushik-isms-btsm-01> says: This document leverages the TMSM framework and describes the use of the BEEP for securing SNMPv3. This specification describes BEEP Transport Mapping Security Model. I don't think BEEP was even on the table when the discussions between EUSM, SBSM and TMSM was made - at least it is not mentioned in the evaluation document <draft-ietf-isms-proposal-comparison>. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
