Re: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/fred/rreq-03.txt

David Waitzman <djw@bbn.com> Wed, 04 January 1995 17:22 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05007; 4 Jan 95 12:22 EST
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05003; 4 Jan 95 12:22 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03128; 4 Jan 95 12:22 EST
Received: from quark.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA03874>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:51:50 -0800
Received: from MORPHEUS.BBN.COM by quark.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA02901>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:51:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199501041651.AA02901@quark.isi.edu>
To: rreq@isi.edu
Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/fred/rreq-03.txt
In-Reply-To: Marshall's message of Wed, 04 Jan 95 07:42:00 -0800. <7062.789234120@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 95 11:50:38 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: David Waitzman <djw@bbn.com>

> Why don't we just remove every reference to SNMPv2 in RREQ?
>
> When SNMPv2 proves itself, I'm sure that it will be time to issue an
> update to RREQ.  At that time, we can have this discussion...

If Marshall (as the NM Area Chair) is agreeing for us to wait on v2
then I agree to wait on a MUST SNMPv2.  I suggest therefore:

    You MAY implement SNMPv2.  You MUST continue to implement SNMPv1 at
    that point (e.g. be an SNMPv2 "bilingual agent"), and in this case,
    allow SNMPv2 to be disabled via a configuration option.  If SNMPv2
    and SNMPv1 are enabled then the default MUST be to disallow use of
    SNMPv1 to compromise any stricter security constraints imposed by
    SNMPv2.

-david