FWIW I'm happy with the text in the -03 draft; not quite what I originally expected, but completely logical.
Thanks Brian On 2008-06-27 05:56, Randy Presuhn wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
