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

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Wed, 04 January 1995 13:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01706; 4 Jan 95 8:41 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01702; 4 Jan 95 8:41 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05755; 4 Jan 95 8:41 EST
Received: from ftp.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA27616>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 05:24:09 -0800
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:24:08 -0500
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:24:08 -0500
Received: by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03592; Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:23:10 EST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:23:10 EST
Message-Id: <9501041323.AA03592@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: djw@bbn.com
Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/fred/rreq-03.txt
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: rreq@isi.edu
Content-Length: 894

 > Given these, I suggest
 > that mentioning SNMPv2 is reasonable, but conditionally, as in:
 > 
 >     "When SNMPv2 reaches Full Standard, you MUST implement it.  You MAY
 >     continue to implement SNMPv1 at that point, but you MUST not allow
 >     use of SNMPv1 to compromise the security constraints imposed by
 >     SNMPv2".
 > 

i do not believe that it is appropriate to make a requirement
'temporally conditional' in this manner. at this point in time,
either v2 is ready to be required in r.r. or it is not. if it is
ready and if we think it is the right thing to do then we should
mandate it. if it is not ready then it is not ready and we should
wait for it to be ready.

--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln