Re: draft-ietf-snmpsec-partyv2-00.txt

CASE@utkvx.utcc.utk.edu Fri, 15 January 1993 19:44 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17571; 15 Jan 93 14:44 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17567; 15 Jan 93 14:44 EST
Received: from SLEEPY.TIS.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18496; 15 Jan 93 14:45 EST
Received: from sleepy.tis.com by sleepy.TIS.COM id aa13406; 15 Jan 93 19:02 GMT
Received: from tis.com by sleepy.TIS.COM id aa13392; 15 Jan 93 13:51 EST
Received: from utkvx2.utk.edu by TIS.COM (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA06990; Fri, 15 Jan 93 13:51:44 EST
Received: from utkvx.utk.edu by utkvx.utk.edu (PMDF #3151 ) id <01GTJSNOW8PQ8X0BO5@utkvx.utk.edu>; Fri, 15 Jan 1993 13:38:32 EST
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 13:38:32 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: CASE@utkvx.utcc.utk.edu
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-snmpsec-partyv2-00.txt
To: {3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com
Cc: snmp-sec-dev@tis.com
Message-Id: <01GTJSNOW8PC8X0BO5@utkvx.utk.edu>
X-Vms-To: IN%"{3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com"
X-Vms-Cc: IN%"snmp-sec-dev@tis.com",CASE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>I have this terrible feeling that I'm missing something incredibly obvious
>so please be patient if I am!

marshall is on an airplane right now and out of touch so i'll try to answer
in his stead, as he has done for me so many times

is the incredibly obvious thing (that is not so incredibly obvious) is that
view 2 includes internet and everything under internet -- the snmpParty MIB
group, while it is not currently under internet, it "should be" as indicated
by comment in the SMI document:

          -- to be moved under internet later on...                       +
          snmpV2        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
                              { joint-iso-ccitt mhs(6) group(6) mtr(200) 4 }


i think you are both right -- pete in the short term, mtr in the long term
pete is speaking about it as it is,
marshall is speaking about it as it will be when the RFC editor finishes
i think that is the source of the confusion and pete brings up a very good point

i hope this is helpful

regards,
jdc