On 13 March 2010 01:46, Wes Hardaker <harda...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Maybe adding a new token to do both would be the right way to go.
If we are going to introduce a new token for com2sec-style handling,
can I suggest that it accept the full range of
transport:address:port
syntax values. That feels much more sensible (and in keeping with usage
elsewhere) than having a separate token for each individual transport..
Similarly, the "r[ow]community" directives (or some equivalent replacement)
should ideally accept this syntax as well, making "r[ow]community6" effectively
redundant.
I'm open to debate over whether this should be an extension of the existing
com2sec/r[ow]community directives (with suitable warnings over the older
implicit-v4 usage), or completely new config tokens.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
