Re: [midcom] security recommendations in MIDCOM MIB draft

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Fri, 13 July 2007 19:56 UTC

Return-path: <midcom-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9RFP-00006e-SD; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:56:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9RFO-0008Pi-2k for midcom@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:56:14 -0400
Received: from dcn236-43.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.236.43] helo=wes.hardakers.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9RFK-0005FQ-OS for midcom@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:56:14 -0400
Received: by wes.hardakers.net (Postfix, from userid 274) id 7DBE02C3604; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [midcom] security recommendations in MIDCOM MIB draft
Organization: Sparta
References: <C2BD06CE.257DA%mshore@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:56:53 -0700
In-Reply-To: <C2BD06CE.257DA%mshore@cisco.com> (Melinda Shore's message of "Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:39:10 -0400")
Message-ID: <sd7ip4axh6.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux, no MULE)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc: midcom@ietf.org, Tim Polk <tim.polk@nist.gov>, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-BeenThere: midcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: midcom.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom>, <mailto:midcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:midcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:midcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom>, <mailto:midcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: midcom-bounces@ietf.org

>>>>> "MS" == Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>; writes:

MS> On 7/13/07 9:58 AM, "Wes Hardaker" <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; wrote:
>> MIBCOM devices MUST implement SNMPv3 to allow for operators to rely on
>> it's features in order to protect their traffic.  Operators should use
>> make use of SNMPv3, other protocols providing cryptographic protection
>> or physical separation to to ensure MIBCOM traffic is secured.

MS> Yes, that's pretty much where I am, too (note that it's actually
MS> "midcom," although "mibcom" is a pretty great portmanteau jobbie).

Drat (I know that of course).  You know I fixed that a few times before
rearranging what I was saying again?  You can tell what 3 letter acronym
I type too often ;-)

sigh...
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom