On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:12:19 +0100 Dave wrote: DS> > It is possible that something set up by the first token would DS> > be confused or get broken by the appearance of the second? eg DS> > DS> > agentSecName wallace DS> > monitor .... DS> > ... DS> > iquerySecName grommit DS> > monitor **** DS> > DS> > Would both monitor statements work? DS> DS> They'd certainly both work. DS> The question is what access permissions should the first monitor DS> statement use? I can code things either way. What would be DS> the most natural behaviour?
I don't know what you mean by access permissions. Remember that I haven't looked at how this stuff actually works. I'm guessing that these secname tokens set up access control stuff? If so, wouldn't they both set things up the same way, thus making no difference? Are these externally visible (in a table somewhere)? -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
