Re: [OPS-AREA] Issue 2: replacement text for securemanagementprotocolboilerplate

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ops-area-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:ops-area-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:28 PM
> To: 'ops-area (IETF)'
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Issue 2: replacement text for 
> securemanagementprotocolboilerplate
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>
> > To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "'ops-area 
> > (IETF)'" <ops-area at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:24 AM
> > Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Issue 2: replacement text for secure 
> > managementprotocolboilerplate
> ...
> > Would the following be better?
> >  
> > "Operators SHOULD enable cryptographic security and ensure that the 
> > protocol giving access to management information is properly 
> > configured to give access only to those principals
> > (users/applications) that have legitimate rights to 
> > read/create/change/delete the information."
> > 
> > i.e.,
> > s:server/agent:protocol:
> > s:(users):(users/applications)/
> > 
> > or does that get so diluted as to be meaningless?
> 
> I think it's better.  To more explicitly address the 
> syslog/notification cases, perhaps one could add "/receive" 
> after "delete"?
> 
> Randy
> 

+1 

Dan

(speaking as contributor)