Security Considerations in a MIB document
"R.E. (Robert) Moore (254-4436)" <REMOORE@ralvm6.vnet.ibm.com> Tue, 18 March 1997 14:23 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa22256; 18 Mar 97 9:23 EST
Received: from brittany.Cisco.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10403; 18 Mar 97 9:23 EST
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (mailgate-sj-1.cisco.com [198.92.30.31]) by brittany.cisco.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA16078 for <extdom.snanaumib@aliashost.cisco.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:17:46 -0800
Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id GAA04966 for <snanaumib@external.cisco.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703181417.GAA04966@hubbub.cisco.com>
Received: from RALVM6 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8106; Tue, 18 Mar 97 09:17:36 EST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:06:01 -0500
From: "R.E. (Robert) Moore (254-4436)" <REMOORE@ralvm6.vnet.ibm.com>
To: aiw-appn-mibs@raleigh.ibm.com, snanaumib@external.cisco.com
Subject: Security Considerations in a MIB document
Jim Cobban wrote: > If there is to be boilerplate about SNMP security in general then how > much more than a reference to RFC 1910 should there be? I agree with Jim's basic point that we shouldn't have to say much in our Security Considerations sections, but we definitely can't go with his specific suggestion here. Since RFC 1910 is an Experimental document, it cannot be referenced by any standards-track document. I'm not sure how we get around the fact that what we *really* need to reference is one or more standards that the yet-to-be-chartered SNMPng working group will (presumably) be producing in late '97 or early '98. Let's not spend too much time / energy on this now, since we'll probably have to change it once SNMPng has come out. Bob Moore
- Security Considerations in a MIB document R.E. (Robert) Moore (254-4436)