Juergen, Scott,
Do you have enough feedback to declare WG consensus on this issue?
Can we expect a new I-D before the pre-Dublin submission cutoff on
Monday?
Thanks and Regards,
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juergen
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:56:14AM +0800, David Harrington wrote:
I think the benefit to operators is greater than the risk of giving
the same benefit to attackers. I am not convinced this information is
sensitive.
I though security considerations should spell out potential risks so
that
Speaking as a contributor I support option b) - (actually a+b)
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:00 AM
To: David Harrington
Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; [EMAIL
a+b
dbh
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:00 PM
To: David Harrington
Cc: 'Randy Presuhn'; 'General Area Review Team';
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Hi -
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Randy Presuhn' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'General Area Review Team'
gen-art@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: Re:
Hi,
Just a touch of perspective.
I joined the SNMP community because SNMPv2-party was so secure,
network management applications would no longer be able to do
autodiscovery of SNMP-capable devices. The autodiscovery we wanted to
be able to do included being able to detect what type of device it
