Re: [Isms] Moving into some design / architecture issuesofExtendedVACM

["Dave Nelson" <d.b.nelson at comcast.net>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes...

> Well, (b) is not really an option - as long as you mean "application"
> in the RFC3411 sense.

You're probably right.  An SNMP application won't have the right hooks into
the "session creation" process.

> What we have as an option is this:
> 
> (c) Fix the RFC3411 architecture so that is supports multiple access
>     control models and then write a RADIUS access control model.
> 
> My concern is that we won't get this done easily and it will take one
> year longer than we are planning this WG to continue.

Yeah.  That would be the "right thing" to do.  The question is whether there
is support in the Internet community to undertake that effort and whether
the result would be worth the effort.  I'm thinking that quick is good.

So, is option (a) still on the table?