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

"James R. (Chuck) Davin" <davin@bellcore.com> Thu, 01 October 1992 14:59 UTC

Message-Id: <9210011504.AA06663@thumper.bellcore.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "James R. (Chuck) Davin" <davin@bellcore.com>
To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
Cc: snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com
Subject: Re: Security issues? (was: Re: Proposal: Removal of MIB View Mask)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:17:29 -0500. <0D15DDF1.evpg86@bir.bir.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 11:03:59 -0400


> From: mlk%bir.com@mathcs.emory.edu (Michael L. Kornegay)
> To: snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com
> Subject: Security issues? (was: Re: Proposal: Removal of MIB View Mask)
> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:17:29 EST
> Cc: snmp-sec-dev@tis.com
> Reply-To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
> Message-Id: <0D15DDF1.evpg86@bir.bir.com>
> X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Regards to your letter <7491.717741612@dbc.mtview.ca.us>us>:
> > First, messages relating to the Party MIB belong on the 
> > 
> > 			  snmp-sec-dev@tis.com
> 
> A couple of questions:
> 
>   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).

Security aspects of the SNMP framework are being considered in the
SNMP Security WG. The SNMP2 WG is not chartered to consider security
issues. Given that participation in both WGs is open, the concern that
certain aspects of the SMP proposals may be adopted by the community
while others may not be adopted or perhaps modified along the way
seems to me quite independent of the venue in which any given issue is
addressed.

> 
>   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 SNMP Security specifications are currently at the Proposed
Standard stage. Their progress through the standards life cycle, with
or without amendments, will be consistent with the normal practice.

> 
>   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?

I don't think this scenario is very likely. Because the security
aspects of the SMP proposal will be considered in the SNMP Security
WG, it seems unlikely to me that that WG would elect to standardize
two different algorithms. I suppose it could happen, but it would
surprise me.

> 
> ----
> mlk@bir.com, mlk@bir.uucp, or bir!mlk (Michael L. Kornegay)

Re: Security issues? (was: Re: Proposal: Removal … Marshall Rose
Re: Security issues? (was: Re: Proposal: Removal … James R. (Chuck) Davin