SNMPv2 is a good thing. Was Re: A non response...

["Karl Auerbach, Empirical Tools and Technologies, 408/427-5280" <[e-mail]>]

 > > But I really think that v2 has gone *extremely* overboard in the area
 > > of administration and security.
 >  
 > As compared to the Proposed standards: RFCs 1351/1352/1353, which it
 > replaces, SNMPv2 simplifies admin and security.  

Now that we are focusing on SNMPv2, we ought to move the discussion
to the SNMP mailing list.

In any case, I don't think any of us want to say that V2 isn't a good
idea or that the security mechanisms are bad.  And I don't want this
discussion to give people the idea that we should wait to deploy V2.

I merely want to suggest that we need to keep talking to see whether
we can boil-down the proposals to a more digestable size, or can
stage the deployment so that we can adopt the firm parts now and
deploy the harder parts later (if ever.)

I'm sure we could come to multiple highly interoperable, independent
implementations of the base protocol pretty quickly, and hence get
those standards up the standards ladder quickly.

That alone would obtain enormous benefits over V1.

I'd like to see the security parts take longer to get the attention
and *serious* implementation experience they deserve.

			--karl--