Subject: RE: [Isms] #1: is it important to support anonymous user access to SNMP?

From: "Kaushik Narayan \(kaushik\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:56:59 -0700

I don't see a potential application for anonymous with SNMP, I think it
is not needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of David B Harrington
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Isms] #1: is it important to support anonymous user access to
SNMP?

>From draft-hardaker-snmp-session-sm-03.txt: "SNMP message exchange
that is authenticated and even private when the session initiator or
responder is anonymous."

This is a new feature provided by SBSM. Can we establish consensus that
a) this is needed or b) this is not needed?

David Harrington
[email-masked]

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

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