 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this logic should meet what everyone is expecting, based on previously agreed upon consensus. If the above looks good logic wise, I'll even offer to check what text needs to be modified and submit a fast proposal for fixing it. Note that the ID cut-off for a -15 is imminent.
Yes, I believe that correctly captures the way I have understood the protocol to work all along, and how I believe we have agreed it should work.
The one bit that confused me was that I thought the SNMPv3 message carried a security name, in which case it would be necessary to verify that that name matched the one provided by the transport layer. But David assures me this is not the case, which means the problem goes away.
-- Jeff