Hi Reyk,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:42:34 +0200, Reyk Floeter r...@openbsd.org wrote:
How about:
noAuthNoPriv- none
authNoPriv - auth
authPriv- encr
Is there a better alternative for encr? Maybe just enc (I know it
would complicate the grammar because
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Gerhard Roth wrote:
same here, wouldn't it be possible to match the ipsec.conf grammar and
ignore the SNMPv3 naming a bit?
auth hmac-sha1 authkey fooobar enc aes enckey dkjdkj
- instead of -
hmac sha authpass foobar cipher aes privpass dkjdkj
or maybe
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:51:27 +0200, Mike Belopuhov m...@crypt.org.ru wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Gerhard Roth wrote:
same here, wouldn't it be possible to match the ipsec.conf grammar and
ignore the SNMPv3 naming a bit?
auth hmac-sha1 authkey fooobar enc aes enckey dkjdkj
- instead
yes, I agree. It makes sense to keep the RFC terminology in the
implementation but to use the common language in the configuration
grammar. developers need to understand the code related to the RFCs,
users shouldn't have to learn new terminology for crypto thats is
configured in n other places in
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Gerhard Roth gerhard_r...@genua.de wrote:
thanks for your thorough inspection of my code. I really appreciate this.
Please find my answers inline below. Hope I didn't miss one.
Your latest diff looks good! I will test and have another look at the
diff and
On 2012/07/18 21:42, Reyk Floeter wrote:
In fact we thought about this. But then, are there any SNMP management
stations in the field that support this transport module?
I have no idea. Well, the question is if there are any stations with
TSM support yet. AFAIK, TSM was defined with
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:21:04 +0200, Gerhard Roth gerhard_r...@genua.de wrote:
Hi all,
below you'll find a patch that adds basic SNMPv3 support to OpenBSD's
snmpd(8). When I say basic that's because of some limitations:
- Traps are still sent via SNMPv2 protocol. They can neither be
