headers
RP | 7 Nov 2002 15:12
Picon
Favicon

Event MIB typo?

I believe that I found a typo in draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt 
(or is it intentional?):

Section 6. Security - 3rd para.
Model (VACM) defined in RFC 2275 [RFC2575] for tables in which

Shouldn't it be
Model (VACM) defined in RFC 2575 [RFC2575] for tables in which

I have also a related question:
"The security for remote access depends on the Target MIB". But the 
target MIB does not store the auth and priv keys. How does the Event MIB 
based DMs know this information?
a) recording appropriate security credentials of the creator of an entry 
and using it for remote access?
b) reading the security credentials from an agent config file?
c) reading the keys from usmUserTable?
d) other?

Best regards,

Rui Pedro
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
The IESG | 7 Nov 2002 21:11
Picon
Favicon

Note Well Statement


From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to
be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list.
===========================================================================

				NOTE WELL

All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the
IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants
to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such
statements.

Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are
addressed to

    - the IETF plenary session,
    - any IETF working group or portion thereof,
    - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
    - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
    - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself,
      any working group or design team list, or any other list
      functioning under IETF auspices,
    - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function

Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function,
that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or
function, are not subject to these provisions.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Chapman, Ken | 7 Nov 2002 20:18
Favicon

draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

Hi,
We are trying to implement the DISMAN-EVENT-MIB and have come across an
ambiguous situation (at least I can't find the answer in the ID).
We are unable to find any text that says a triger for just 'existence' has a
SYNTAX restriction.
If an owner specified an 'existence' triger on an object that has a syntax
that does not evaluate to a 32 bit interger, what do we send in the for
mteHotValue in the mteTriggerFired notification?
Are we missing something?
Thanks.
	Ken
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ramanathan Kavasseri | 8 Nov 2002 00:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt


"Chapman, Ken" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> We are trying to implement the DISMAN-EVENT-MIB and have come across an
> ambiguous situation (at least I can't find the answer in the ID).
> We are unable to find any text that says a triger for just 'existence' has a
> SYNTAX restriction.
> If an owner specified an 'existence' triger on an object that has a syntax
> that does not evaluate to a 32 bit interger, what do we send in the for
> mteHotValue in the mteTriggerFired notification?
> Are we missing something?
> Thanks.
>         Ken

Ken,

looking over the draft, I have NO CLUE what the value
of mteHotValue should be when mteTriggerTest is fired for
instance creation or deletion. Further, if the value
of an object with syntax OCTET STRING changes, how can you
represent that in mteHotValue?

Should we send mteTriggerTest notifications
for thresholds and booleans only? This would mean adding
an mteTriggerExistenceTest notification - and we'll still
need to replace mteHotValue.

Ram
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Chapman, Ken | 8 Nov 2002 15:50
Favicon

RE: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

Hi Ram,
Thanks.
Those were our thoughts as well.
	Ken

p.s.: What is Bob Stewarts opinion?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
Ken Chapman              Juniper Networks, Inc. 
                         M/S 3136 
Tel: +1 978 589 0288     10 Technology Park Drive 
Fax: +1 978 589 0800     Westford, MA  01886-3410
KChapman <at> Juniper.net <mailto:KChapman <at> Juniper.net> 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramanathan Kavasseri [mailto:ramk <at> cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:39 PM
To: Chapman, Ken
Cc: 'disman <at> dorothy.bmc.com'
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

"Chapman, Ken" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> We are trying to implement the DISMAN-EVENT-MIB and have come across an
> ambiguous situation (at least I can't find the answer in the ID).
> We are unable to find any text that says a triger for just 'existence' has
a
> SYNTAX restriction.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Reid | 8 Nov 2002 19:31
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

> Hi,
> We are trying to implement the DISMAN-EVENT-MIB and have come across an
> ambiguous situation (at least I can't find the answer in the ID).
> We are unable to find any text that says a triger for just 'existence' has a
> SYNTAX restriction.
> If an owner specified an 'existence' triger on an object that has a syntax
> that does not evaluate to a 32 bit interger, what do we send in the for
> mteHotValue in the mteTriggerFired notification?
> Are we missing something?
> Thanks.
>         Ken

In our implementation, we leave mteHotValue out of the notification if
it is not a 32 bit integer. 

I'd be interested in hearing what others have done in this case. 

-David Reid
 SNMP Research, Inc.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 9 Nov 2002 01:56
Picon

Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

Hi -

> Message-Id: <200211081831.NAA02825 <at> seymour39.snmp.com>
> To: disman <at> dorothy.bmc.com
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt
> Cc: kchapman <at> juniper.net, ramk <at> cisco.com
> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:31:05 -0500
> From: David Reid <reid <at> snmp.com>
...
> In our implementation, we leave mteHotValue out of the notification if
> it is not a 32 bit integer. 
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing what others have done in this case. 
...

Would it be too heretical to suggest that perhaps we should have
used Opaque for this object-type's syntax?

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 randy_presuhn <at> bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 9 Nov 2002 03:42
Picon

Re: Event MIB typo?

Hi -

> Message-ID: <3DCA74D1.9010906 <at> ipb.pt>
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:12:33 +0000
> From: RP <rlopes <at> ipb.pt>
> To: disman <at> dorothy.bmc.com
> Subject: Event MIB typo?
> 
> I believe that I found a typo in draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt 
> (or is it intentional?):
> 
> Section 6. Security - 3rd para.
> Model (VACM) defined in RFC 2275 [RFC2575] for tables in which
> 
> Shouldn't it be
> Model (VACM) defined in RFC 2575 [RFC2575] for tables in which

Yes, though the fix will be a bit more invasive.  The SNMPv3 RFCs
are in the final throes of editing, and new MIB boilerplate, as
well as updated security incantation are also being produced.
By the time the next update to the i-d comes out, these changes
will need to be applied.

> I have also a related question:
> "The security for remote access depends on the Target MIB". But the 
> target MIB does not store the auth and priv keys. How does the Event MIB 
> based DMs know this information?
> a) recording appropriate security credentials of the creator of an entry 
> and using it for remote access?
> b) reading the security credentials from an agent config file?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David T. Perkins | 9 Nov 2002 04:26

Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

HI,

At 04:56 PM 11/8/2002 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>> In our implementation, we leave mteHotValue out of the notification if
>> it is not a 32 bit integer. 
>> 
>> I'd be interested in hearing what others have done in this case. 
>...
>
>Would it be too heretical to suggest that perhaps we should have
>used Opaque for this object-type's syntax?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141

What would the value be if you used type "OPAQUE"?

Regards,
/david t. perkins
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
RP | 11 Nov 2002 09:49
Picon
Favicon

Event MIB sub agent? (was Event MIB typo)

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Yes, though the fix will be a bit more invasive.  The SNMPv3 RFCs
> are in the final throes of editing, and new MIB boilerplate, as
> well as updated security incantation are also being produced.
> By the time the next update to the i-d comes out, these changes
> will need to be applied.

OK. I did not see yet the SNMPv3 drafts. I will take a look into it to 
stop making unnecessary questions. ;)

> I agree that this sentence leaves too much to the
> imagination.  The descriptions of mteTriggerTargetTag and
> mteEventSetTargetTag are supposed to explain the rest, with
> RFC 2573 clause 2 as background.
>
> The target lookup would give a set of sets of security
> parameters, which in turn could be used to get the keys for
> the respective systems from usmUserTable.

By the way, I still have another one:
The current approach to the delegation of security parameters to the 
Event MIB does not allow it to be built as an AgentX sub agent, or am I 
missing somethind?

Thanks for the answers.

Best regards,

Rui Pedro
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane