Re: [Isms] Comments on the BTSMS proposal

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

On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Tom Petch wrote:

> When security is outside SNMP, at the transport layer, then
> somewhere in the SNMP engine needs to tell TMSM or transport what is
> wanted, which then says yes or no; and the level on the wire may
> exceed what is requested (eg authPriv v authNoPriv) which, IMHO,
> needs recording in the packet (where?) and needs passing up the
> stack of the recipient (how?).

The TMSM document discusses this in some detail. I fail to see why you
think it is necessary to touch the flags in the SNMP packet. Can you
please elaborate?

> None of this is in the architecture or ASIs.  And recall that the
> PDU is ASN.1 so the transport layer cannot readily set or reset
> flags in it, even in the space set aside for security parms ie we
> are in a sense modifying the SNMPv3 PDU format by moving the
> securityParms outside the ASN.1 SEQUENCE.

The TMSM document currently proposes to pass this information between
the pieces of the split security model via a cache referred to by a
cache reference. Again, I like to understand why you think it is
necessary to change the SNMPv3 PDU format.

/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