Subject: RE: [Isms] Discussion: Architecture direction for ISMS

From: "Martin Soukup" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:47:09 -0400

I don't think that is an accurate restatement. I think it would be more
accurate to say:

Currently, by design, USM SNMP engines perform operations in the context of
a user's credentials and do not have credentials of their own.

Martin.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Sam Hartman
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:10 PM
To: Blumenthal, Uri
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isms] Discussion: Architecture direction for ISMS

>>>>> "Blumenthal," == Blumenthal, Uri <[email-masked]> 
>>>>> writes:

    Blumenthal,> I was saying that CURRENTLY *by conscious design*
    Blumenthal,> SNMP entities do not have credentials of its own, and
    Blumenthal,> operate exclusively on behalf of users who request
    Blumenthal,> operations.

Is the following a technically accurate restatement of the above:

Currently, by design, USM SNMP engines share a credential for each user?

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

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:02:02 -0400

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Soukup <[email-masked]> writes:

    Martin> I don't think that is an accurate restatement. I think it
    Martin> would be more accurate to say:

    Martin> Currently, by design, USM SNMP engines perform operations
    Martin> in the context of a user's credentials and do not have
    Martin> credentials of their own.

    Martin> Martin.

I honestly don't understand how this is different than what I said
except in that it fails to convey that the SNMP engine (or something
associated with it) has a bunch of keys for individual users.  Your
help iin understanding the difference is appreciated.