Re: Protocol Action: SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security to Proposed Standard

[Stephen D Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Bill and Karl,

The name of a fifth interoperable implementation was supplied to the
IESG, but with the proviso that they would have to contact the vendor to
get permission to identify them.

I don't have a lot of additional details, but I found it helpful to
know there had been an independent effort.  I was more concerned with
the readability of the documents than the actual success of the
implementation since multiple interoperable implementations are not
required for Proposed Standard status.

I expect additional work on the documents and additional reviews
during the next few months.  If either of you want to sign up to do a
serious review, let me know.


Steve


> From: [e-mail] (Bill Norton)
> Subject: Re: Protocol Action: SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security to Proposed Standard
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 93 18:52:31 -0500
> To: Greg Vaudreuil <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>         [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>         [e-mail]
> 
> Actually,  I'd be curious to hear the answer to these questions.
> Besides the four implementations from the authors, are there any others
> that have proven interoperability? 
> 
> Were these "complete" implementations ( all security stuff, bulk
> retrievals, etc.? )
> 
> Who in the IESG reviewed the specs?  
> 
>   
> Bill