Re: [Isms] securityName via securityLevel

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at iu-bremen.de>]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 09:23:10AM +0200, Tom Petch wrote:
> Juergen
> 
> I am confused.
> 
> Rereading my previous e-mail, I do mean what I said.  I believe I
> understand the difference between security level on the wire and
> authorisation/access control and use them in the same sense as 
> you.. I have read and still read your option d) as proposing that 
> securityLevel on the wire should be used to determine the group
> name and hence the access control in vacm.
> 
> So consider that option e) and please give me an alternative explanation for
> what you described as
> 
> "d) provide a wildcard mapping extension to VACM which can be exploited
>    to map                       all security name with the same
>    security level              and security  model together
>    into a vacm group      (works only on simple setups where
> 
>    you basically do not distinguish between different MIB views for
>    authenticated users - but perhaps this is a low hanging fruit that
>    covers most existing VACM configurations anyway)"
> 
> which I read as a proposal to map (one of three) security level into a
> (one of three) vacm group but which you say does not:-(

Sorry, I did not see the context of your statement. So yes, d == e
(and I am not sure this really is an option).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms