Warren Kumari wrote on 26.11.2014 18:54:
> So, dear authors, please resubmit as.. etc.
ok, we will do so.
Are there any further suggestion, e.g., from the authors of
draft-hartman-snmp-sha2, for modifications? Now is the right
time to express them.
--
Johannes
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM, David Reid wrote:
> Is there any progress on this?
>
Wow. Yes, sorry, there is...
We mentioned in the face to face meeting at IETF91 that we would be
adopting draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp (and thanking Sam et al. for
supporting this decision) - however, we never act
Is there any progress on this?
I like the proposal from Johannes to continue with draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
and to shorten the list of protocols.
-David Reid
> > A month on, what is the WG chairs take on this?
>
> Good question. Even more time has passed by now.
>
> Maybe it helps, if I summa
Hi.
I've sent out a proposal internally and expect to respond in a couple of
days.
--sam
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> We chairs see a preference on the opsawg mailing list to adopt
> draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp as a working group document.
>
> That said, we would like to request that the authors of the two
> drafts try one more time to compromise on a single document.
>
Actually, I hoped that my suggestion on
[I just realized that the authors of draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 were not in cc]
> We chairs see a preference on the opsawg mailing list to adopt
> draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp as a working group document.
>
> That said, we would like to request that the authors of the two
> drafts try one more time
[ Top-post]
First off, an apology for the delays. Scott and I have been traveling
and have had a hard time meeting up for our standard chair's calls...
So, bringing everyone up to date...
Clearly it would be a good idea to bring SNMP security up to date by
adding support for SHA-2. There are tw
t.petch wrote on 25.09.2014 18:42:
> A month on, what is the WG chairs take on this?
Good question. Even more time has passed by now.
Maybe it helps, if I summarize the results of my poll. Hereby, I assume that
the authors of the two drafts prefer their
respective approach (a presumption, I can
A month on, what is the WG chairs take on this?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Kumari"
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" ;
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:11 PM
>
> Scott and I just chatted about this.
> We see that there is interest in this topic, we think it is an
> important top
Uri Blumenthal asked me to forward his answers below to the list (he is not
subscribed).
Johannes
Original Message
Betreff: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
Datum: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:19:38 +
Von: Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL
An: Johannes
- Original Message -
From: "Johannes Merkle"
To:
Cc: "David Reid" ; "t.petch" ;
"Warren Kumari" ; "opsawg@ietf.org"
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 1:19 PM
> As Warren asked us to check the option of combining both drafts, I'm
not sure if a general vote for one draft is the
> best way f
Warren Kumari wrote on 02.09.2014 17:27:
> These sound like reasonable questions to me -- lets give this a few
> days to see where things settle (hint: if you have views on this
> topic, please reply so your views are heard).
Actually, I'll have to give it two weeks as I will be on holiday.
--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Johannes Merkle
wrote:
> As Warren asked us to check the option of combining both drafts, I'm not sure
> if a general vote for one draft is the
> best way forward.
>
Sure, fair 'nuff.
> I would appreciate if all interested parties (incl Tom and David) could
> i
> As Warren asked us to check the option of combining both drafts,
> I'm not sure if a general vote for one draft is the best way forward.
>
> I would appreciate if all interested parties (incl Tom and David)
> could indicate their preference in the following 3 questions:
>
> 1. Should the prot
As Warren asked us to check the option of combining both drafts, I'm not sure
if a general vote for one draft is the
best way forward.
I would appreciate if all interested parties (incl Tom and David) could
indicate their preference in the following 3
questions:
1. Should the protocols be descr
Thanks for your clarification.
At this point I think we understand each other, and it is up to the WG
to form an opinion.
--Sam
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> I would like to see draft-hmac proceed, pretty much as is.
+1
-David Reid
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:01:32AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Juergen" == Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > writes:
>
> Juergen> At least, we should not confuse 'Abstract Service
> Juergen> Interfaces', 'Subsystems', 'Models' and 'extension points'
> Juergen> (which is a new conc
> "Juergen" == Juergen Schoenwaelder
> writes:
Juergen> At least, we should not confuse 'Abstract Service
Juergen> Interfaces', 'Subsystems', 'Models' and 'extension points'
Juergen> (which is a new concept since so far Models do not have
Juergen> such plugin extension po
Re: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
> There was a fair amount of working group discussion around
> draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp. That feedback was incorporated
> into the latest version of the draft (things like adding a MIB
> module, deciding how many and which hm
The SNMP architecture in RFC3411 has 'Abstract Service Interfaces'
between 'Subsystems'. What we are talking about here is a possible
'extension point' within a specific Model implementing a specific
Subsystem. I think these are different things and it remains unclear
whether it is worth to define
Hi.
My concern in describing things as diffs to the md5 algorithm in 3414 s
that there's not a well defined abstraction there at that layer.
The SNMP community has been very careful to define rules of procedure
and very well-defined interfaces afor extension and for variability in
SNMP. When we
Hedanping (Ana) wrote on 28.08.2014 06:40:
>
>> Johannes wrote on 27.08.2014 19:46:
>>
>> The purpose of our delta-description was to make clear that the basic
>> protocol
>> design of RFC 3414 does not change (only the hash function and the lengths of
>> some data) and to facilitate implementati
> Johannes wrote on 27.08.2014 19:46:
>
> The purpose of our delta-description was to make clear that the basic protocol
> design of RFC 3414 does not change (only the hash function and the lengths of
> some data) and to facilitate implementation. Existing implementations of the
> RFC
> 3414 auth
There was a fair amount of working group discussion around
draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp. That feedback was incorporated
into the latest version of the draft (things like adding a MIB
module, deciding how many and which hmac authentication protocols
to use, what descriptor names to use, mac truncatio
Hi all,
Scott and I just chatted about this.
We see that there is interest in this topic, we think it is an
important topic, and we would like to adopt /a/ document that
addresses this.
We'd appreciate it if the authors of draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp and
draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 can discuss how to m
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 01:45:43PM +0200, Johannes Merkle wrote:
> Sam Hartman wrote on 26.08.2014 22:26:
> > I've reviewed both draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 and
> > draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp.
> >
>
> I suggest that others on the list speak up and declare their preference.
>
I can't declare a clear
Sam Hartman wrote on 26.08.2014 22:26:
> I've reviewed both draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 and
> draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp.
>
> In general, I believe that draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 provides a better
> starting point for a SHA2 authentication algorithm for USM.
In general, I would have no objections with t
Hi all,
Please see my comments between [Danping->>]...[<<-Danping].
-Original Message-
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartm...@painless-security.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:26 AM
To: Warren Kumari
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-s...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-hartman
Hi.
I've reviewed both draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 and
draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp.
In general, I believe that draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 provides a better
starting point for a SHA2 authentication algorithm for USM.
draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp provides differences between the MD5 algorithm
described in RF
With huge apologies to everyone involved, I'm going to extend this
call for adoption for 2 days (till the 27th).
After Tom found
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hartman-snmp-sha2/ and made us
aware, Scott and I chatted. We decided that we should make the authors
of draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 a
ve no clue.
>
> Johannes
>
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > - Original Message -----
> > From: "Warren Kumari"
> > To: "opsawg@ietf.org" ;
> >
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:28 PM
> > Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for Adop
h
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Warren Kumari"
> To: "opsawg@ietf.org" ;
>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:28 PM
> Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
>
>
>> Dear OpsAWG WG,
>>
>> This start
I support adoption by the working group. I'm willing to review the
document and I also plan to implement it.
-David Reid
> Dear OpsAWG WG,
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp.
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-
Message -
From: "Warren Kumari"
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" ;
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:28 PM
Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
> Dear OpsAWG WG,
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp.
>
> T
Dear OpsAWG WG,
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp.
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
adoption by OpsAWG,
and comments to the list, clearly stating yo
36 matches
Mail list logo
