On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 13:32 +0200, Makavy, Erez (Erez) wrote: > So net-snmp does not conform to the these RFC standards? > (which clearly shows that VACM Authorization is required for > applications generating notification)
The command-line tools do not implement View-Based Access Control, so this RFC is simply not relevant. You are quite correct - the agent doesn't not conform to this particular aspect of RFC 3415. Speaking personally, I believe that this model is somewhat flawed, and it would be more sensible to use one view to cover the payload varbinds of a notification, and a *separate* view to cover the notification OIDs themselves. They are two very different things, and shoe-horning them both into a single view seems Just Plain Wrong. But that's as may be. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [email protected] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
