Hi - > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'General Area Review Team'" > <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:59 AM > Subject: Re: > [OPSAWG]Gen-ARTLCreviewofdraft-ietf-opsawg-snmp-engineid-discovery-02.txt ... > An an editor, I need to understand the WG consensus. I currently see > three options on the table: > > a) document the potential information leakage associated with > snmpEngineID discovery
perhaps with a note that this information can get out in other ways > b) declare that this potential information leakage is a feature that > is RECOMMENDED to support I'd quibble with the "to support" - we're not talking about an implementation decision, but rather a deployment / usage decision, since the VACM configuration is what would determine how much "leaks", beyond what the protocol itself exposes. > c) remove all discussion about this issue and simply stay silent, > following the spirit of the USM standard ... So I agree in spirit with a+b Randy _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
