Re: status and future of the isms working group

>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:31:33 +0200, "t.petch" <[email protected]> said:

tp> And yes, I am making my point quite strongly, because I think that
tp> an 'RFC6411' would be a poor use of IETF resources.

Well, I won't dive into "sessions" because it's way beyond a useful
argument at this point.

But, I will agree I don't think the WG should go down the path of
defining a new architecture.  It just won't help much.

As I've said before, I think it's more important that developers can or
can't make the changes need to create a feature.  The architecture was a
way to say "if you can make the architecture bend in this way, then all
the implementations should".  But because we can, in general, enumerate
the SNMPv3 stack implementations on one hand it's not hard to survey
them and say "could you implement this new feature of the protocol in
your implementation"?

Trying to define a model that will always account for every way you
might need to break the rules in the future is an impossible task.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions