Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-14
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Alvaro Retana No Record
Andrew Alston No Record
Erik Kline No Record
Francesca Palombini No Record
John Scudder No Record
Lars Eggert No Record
Martin Duke No Record
Murray Kucherawy No Record
Paul Wouters No Record
Robert Wilton No Record
Roman Danyliw No Record
Warren Kumari No Record
Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Record
Éric Vyncke No Record
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes
1. For consistency purposes (as TLS is expanded) expand SNMP in the title.
2. In a couple of places (section 1, section 9.1) I encountered the term 'notification responder' while in all other places 'notification receiver' is used. The terms are not exactly synonims, is the inconsistency intentional?
3. In Section 3.3
When configuring a (D)TLS target, the snmpTargetAddrTDomain and
snmpTargetAddrTAddress parameters in snmpTargetAddrTable should be
set to the snmpTLSTCPDomain or snmpDTLSUDPDomain object and an
appropriate snmpTLSAddress value. When used with the SNMPv3 message
processing model, the snmpTargetParamsMPModel column of the
snmpTargetParamsTable should be set to a value of 3. The
snmpTargetParamsSecurityName should be set to an appropriate
securityName value and the snmpTlstmParamsClientFingerprint parameter
of the snmpTlstmParamsTable should be set a value that refers to a
locally held certificate (and the corresponding private key) to be
used.
All 'should' seem to need to be capitalized.
4. In Section 4.1
Enterprise configurations are encouraged to map a "subjectAltName"
component of the X.509 certificate to the TLSTM specific
tmSecurityName.
I do not think that we have a clear notion of what an 'enterprise configuration' is and why it would be more appropriate for such a mapping. It looks like a (non-capitalized) may is more appropriate here.
5. In Section 5.2 5b) s/If there is not a corresponding LCD entry/If there is no corresponding LCD entry/
6. In Section 5.4.4
4) Have (D)TLS close the specified connection. This SHOULD include
sending a close_notify TLS Alert to inform the other side that
session cleanup may be performed.
Unless I miss something sending the close_notify TLS Alert is always part of the closing sequence, so s/SHOULD/MUST/
7. Some of the references in the MIB module are not included as Informative References - for example RFC 1033, RFC 3490
(David Harrington; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
A few thoughts about the MIB module. Nothing of any great importance. It would be helpful if the Imports clause indicated (through comments) the source documents for the MIB modules from which things are being imported. --- SnmpTLSAddress Since I-D.ietf-6man-text-addr-representation is ahead of this document in the process-chain, it would be good if you could include an RFC Editor note requesting the reference to be changed where it appears in the Description and Reference clause in the MIB module in this document. So the comment -- RFC Editor: if I-D.ietf-6man-text-addr-representation fails to get -- published ahead of this draft, RFC3513 has been agreed to be a -- sufficient replacement instead. could also be clarified as a specific instruction. Note that since the I-D is a normative reference, you don't have to worry about the order of publication. --- SnmpTLSFingerprint Some problem with line feeds? --- Do you need to worry about discontinuities with your counters?
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection