I support adoption. It brings USM up-to-date. However, I am aware of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hartman-snmp-sha2/ which looks remarkable similar in scope but different in detail. I regard https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/ as the superior I-D but am surprised at the existence of the other, with its distinguished list of editors. Any ideas what their intentions are?
I would not want to see a merger of the two I-Ds, I think that that would be the worst outcome, although having both become RFC would also be a bad result. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:28 PM Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp > Dear OpsAWG WG, > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp. > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for > adoption by OpsAWG, > and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > This call for adoption ends Mon 25-Aug-2014. > > In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"): > If you are personally aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance > with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more > details.) > > > > Thanks, > Warren Kumari > (as OpsAWG WG co-chair) > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
