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

Stephen D Crocker <crocker@tis.com> Mon, 05 April 1993 01:40 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10704; 4 Apr 93 21:40 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10700; 4 Apr 93 21:40 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20514; 4 Apr 93 21:40 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10687; 4 Apr 93 21:40 EDT
Received: from TIS.COM by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10683; 4 Apr 93 21:40 EDT
Received: from TIS.COM by TIS.COM (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA15803; Sun, 4 Apr 93 21:41:27 EDT
Message-Id: <9304050141.AA15803@TIS.COM>
To: Bill Norton <wbn@merit.edu>, karl@empirical.com
Cc: iab@isi.edu, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com, IESG@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: SNMP Version 2 and SNMP Security to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 02 Apr 93 18:52:31 -0500. <9304022352.AA09247@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 93 21:41:26 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Stephen D Crocker <crocker@tis.com>

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: wbn@merit.edu (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 <gvaudre@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
> Cc: karl@empirical.com, iesg-secretary@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, postel@isi.edu,
>         iab@isi.edu, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com,
>         IESG@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
> 
> 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