Re: [Isms] Ismssnmp: URI scheme transport extensions

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:12:46AM +0200, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:29:24 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de> said:
> 
> JS> snmp://tester5 at example.com:5161;transport=ssh
> JS>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JS>                                 new
> 
> I think you're still missing an important element, namely the
> securityModel.  No where above does it specify TSM anywhere so I don't
> think it's complete as is.

Yes, I agree. I was thinking about having a default for all this as we
do now - you get SNMPv3/USM/UDP. If you specify transport=ssh, you get
securitymodel=tsm as default - I did not spell this out.
 
> [I think that's likely missing from 4088 as well, for that matter,
> regardless of whether it's updated for transport specific concerns;
> the fact that it's excluded from the original document is sort of
> odd in my opinion in the first place since we're obviously to the
> point where multiple security models exist (although they've existed
> long before this)]

When RFC 4088 was done, we scoped the work and now might be the time
to make it more complete. What we discussed back then was more version
information for community based SNMP, e.g.

snmp://tester5 at example.com:5161;version=snmpv1

(but we felt that opening this can of worms for a historic protocol
version could be troublesome and so we tossed this idea).

/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/>