Re: [Isms] What granularity of attributes do we need for thesecure transport?

["David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>]

Hi,

You are right. The wording I used was poor.

I do not believe we need to provision the security protocl; I think we
should allow an operator to decide which secure transport they want to
require as a conditon of granting access to the SNMP service. How that
secure transport is configured to deliver certain properties is out of
scope.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de] 
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:27 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'Jeffrey Hutzelman'; 'David B. Nelson'; isms at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isms] What granularity of attributes do we need 
> for thesecure transport?
> 
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:41:07AM -0400, David Harrington wrote:
>  
> > I certainly have never argued that we should provision such
things,
> > except the protocol. 
> 
> Speaking as technical contributor...
> 
> I think it is important to not confuse the configuration of say an
> SNMP engine or an SSH implementation with RADIUS authentication /
> authorization decisions. Certain things can very well be handled via
> configuration.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 


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