Re: [Isms] What granularity of attributes do we need forthe securetransport?

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

Hi -

> From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>
> To: "'Wes Hardaker'" <wjhns1 at hardakers.net>; "'Randy Presuhn'" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Cc: <isms at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 5:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [Isms] What granularity of attributes do we need forthe securetransport?
...
> If we do not send a hint because there is no attribute for it, then is
> it appropriate for RADIUS to **only be able to** respond that "any
> transport protocol that provides integrity checking and encryption is
> fine for SNMP for this user"? 
...

I think the corner we're painting ourselves into here is just as you
describe it, and that providing a way to configure the systems in
an administrative domain so that the actual security provided is
known and adequate, while a legitimate operational concern
which should be documented,  is probably also something that
the IETF won't ever get around to actually addressing.

Randy

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