Subject: RE: [Isms] USM Protection vs Transport Protection

From: "Khanh Nguyen \(khanhvn\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:38:36 -0700

Good point.  

My opinion is that we should rely on transport protection as much as
possible (key exchange, encryption, MAC...), except authentication (I
mean user/device auth, not MAC), which is better to be handled at SNMP
application level.

This is similar to HTTPS, which runs HTTP over SSL/TLS.  In HTTPS
environments, user authentication is often done by HTML/HTTP
applications, 'over', not 'by' SSL/TLS transport.  For SNMP, we can use
a similar way not only for user but also device auth.

Khanh

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Kaushik Narayan (kaushik)
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:49 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Isms] USM Protection vs Transport Protection

Hi All,

Having gone through the discussion of architectural choices, I think the
first decision that we might want to make is whether we need continue to
use USM for message protection vs. using some other protection mechanism
such as the transport protection suggested by TLSM.

regards,
   kaushik!

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms