Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
RFC 5953

Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.

(David Harrington) Yes

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

Comment (2010-04-29)
No email
send info
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

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

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

Comment (2010-05-06)
No email
send info
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



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

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.



Some problem with line feeds?


Do you need to worry about discontinuities with your counters?

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Record

Alissa Cooper No Record

Roman Danyliw No Record

Martin Duke No Record

Benjamin Kaduk No Record

Erik Kline No Record

Murray Kucherawy No Record

Warren Kumari No Record

Barry Leiba No Record

Alvaro Retana No Record

Martin Vigoureux No Record

Éric Vyncke No Record

Magnus Westerlund No Record

Robert Wilton No Record