Re: [Isms] #32: is the securityName=username default OK?

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
> To: "Nelson, David" <dnelson at enterasys.com>
> Cc: <isms at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Isms] #32: is the securityName=username default OK?
...
> I believe that assuming Tmsecurityname is human readable is in general
> false.  There are too many complicated problems having to do with
> choosing the right name and various things people want to put in a
> name.
> 
> I believe that you can assume the ssh username is human readable and
> agree with david that you do not want per-user configuration.
...

By the time one gets to VACM, it will have to have been somehow
trasformed into an SnmpAdminString (that's the syntax of
vacmSecurityName, UTF-8) which means there's a fairly strong
assumption that it's going to be seen by humans.  The textual
convention is written to cope with non-displayable stuff, but the
advice on its use in RFC 3411 seems pretty clear.

Randy


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