Re: Security issues? (was: Re: Proposal: Removal of MIB View Mask)

[Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>]

>   o Dont you think that Secure SNMP related issues related to SMP or SNMPv2 
>     should be discussed in both places?  SMP security is different (currently
>     just a little, but the working group could recommend anything).

The changes that SMP makes to SNMP Security are now input the SNMP
Security working group.  They don't need to be discussed in both places.

>   o What do you see as the evolution of the Secure SNMP proposals if the
>     Secure SNMP RFC are not modified to adhere to the SMP security changes?

The current SNMP Security RFCs are lame ducks.  They need to be aligned
with SNMP version 2.  Hopefully the working group will improve on the
changes that the SMP authors made.

>   o If SNMPv2 is recommended to become an Internet standard, is the IETF
>     also going to also have Secure SNMP as an additional Internet standard?

The two works will have to progress together.  SNMP Security is
presently at the proposed stage, though I expect that the next version
of those documents, the one that will sync with SNMP version 2, will
also be at the proposed stage initially.

/mtr