RE: [Isms] #1: is it important to support anonymous user access to SNMP?

[Miao Fuyou <miaofy at huawei.com>]

It may be a practical feature for some scenarios. In the same time I believe
supporting anonymity is heavily dependent to access control policies, and it
may not be orthogonal to access control model. 

-----Original Message-----
From: isms-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:isms-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of David B Harrington
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:24 AM
To: isms at ietf.org
Subject: [Isms] #1: is it important to support anonymous user access to
SNMP?



>From draft-hardaker-snmp-session-sm-03.txt: "SNMP message exchange
that is authenticated and even private when the session initiator or
responder is anonymous."

This is a new feature provided by SBSM. Can we establish consensus that a)
this is needed or b) this is not needed?

David Harrington
dbharrington at comcast.net




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


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