Subject: RE: [Isms] securityName

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:22:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

Hi -

> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Aug 2, 2005 11:07 AM
> To: Tom Petch <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Isms] securityName
...
> However, I am not clear how we are planning on adding additional privacy
> and authentication mechanisms and still leave SNMPv3 USM and VACM
> untouched. Where are the interfaces between the two systems (the old and
> new) being drawn?
...
That is a key point of the SNMPv3 architecture: new interfaces between the
old and new mechanisms should not be needed.  They should plug in using
the *conceptual* interface provided by the ASIs, which are really just a
way of modularizing the specification, not necessarily an implementation.

The addition of a new authentication mechanism should not require any
changes whatsoever to VACM.  The introduction of a new privacy mechanism
should not require any changes whatsoever to VACM.  If it does, something
is very broken.

Randy

Randy

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