[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: snmpconf Re: TE-MIB readonly or read/write




Forwarding message bounced due to address change.


------- Forwarded Message


X-Sender: bnatale@plymouth.acec.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.1
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:14:26 -0500
To: Jon Saperia <saperia@mediaone.net>
From: Bob Natale <natale@erols.com>
Subject: Re: snmpconf Re: TE-MIB readonly or read/write
Cc: snmpconf@snmp.com, te-wg@uu.net, snmpv3@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <3A3F379B.F21B6616@mediaone.net>
References: <B663607B.6B50%saperia@mediaone.net>
 <002701c06925$f6e541a0$b2aea8c0@erilab.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12/19/2000:05:25 AM, Jon Saperia wrote:

Hi Jon,

>I think we have a clear consensus among those that have recently
>commented.


I agree...and since, for once, I probably can't be counted among
"the verbose and/or stubborn" on a topic, I'd like to add:

>Define the MIB module completely including configuration/control
>objects.

Definitely.

>There are plenty of standard mechanisms by which vendors and users
>can use less than the full set of capabilities.

Right, and given the rest of the informative messages in this thread,
we would want to be sure that includes (1) spec'ing with SNMPv3
security capabilities in mind, (2) use of the MIN-ACCESS clause, and
(3) use of MODULE-COMPLIANCE macros as may be deemed appropriate by
the WGs involved.

Thanks,

BobN


------- End of Forwarded Message