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

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

Hi -

> From: "Salowey, Joe" <jsalowey at cisco.com>
> To: "Nelson, David" <dnelson at enterasys.com>; <isms at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [Isms] #32: is the securityName=username default OK?
...
> I think mapping will need to happen and that mapping functions may vary
> from deployment to deployment.  It seems useful for an entity to be able
> to assert a name it wants to use.  Mapping can happen within the SSH
> implementation without direct involvement of SSHSM.  If the securityName
> field in the SNMP message then SSHSM would need to be involved in the
> mapping.  Doing the mapping in SSHSM adds complexity and probably should
> be at most optional (the complexity might be less if we had a decent
> name mapping API).   
...

Do you envision that these mappings would be configured via a MIB, or
would some other mechanism ensure that the various implementations in
a deployment were using the right mappings?

Randy


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