Re: [Isms] Moving into some design / architecture issues of ExtendedVACM

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson at elbrysnetworks.com>]

David Harrington writes...

> I strongly object to a "VACM extension" that works this way.
> That is a totally different access control model, with different
> assumptions, and it should use its own MIB module.
> 
> That way VACM and RADIUS-ACM models can coexist.
> And THAT is a key tenet of SNMPv3.

Didn't we already consider having a completely new ACM for RADIUS usage and
dismiss that option because of some "issue" with the architecture that
precludes a practical run-time selection mechanism for the ACM?

(This message probably won't make it to the mailing list until late tonight
or early tomorrow.  We're still having mail server issues.)