Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
(David Harrington) Yes
(Dan Romascanu) 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
(Sean Turner) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) 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?