RE: draft-bakke-dhc-snmp-trap-00.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

So it seems you did not think about it in detail.
What I hate to see is a partial solution to jsut the trap
handling. That is what the IPCDN (cable modem folk) seemed
to be doing too... and I pushed back on that (partial)
solution too. I do not have a answer ready... 

First question would be: is it a generic problem that people face?

Second question: what is the complete scope of the problem?

Third question: what would be a good/feasable/workable solution?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke@cisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 23 september 2002 15:55
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: 'dhcwg@ietf.org'; snmpv3@lists. tislabs. com (E-mail);
> mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bakke-dhc-snmp-trap-00.txt
> 
> 
> I assumed that, when we get to configuring SNMPv3 security,
> that the names "joe" and "bob" would be separately associated
> with their keys.  I wanted to keep this particular DHCP
> option scope to include the notification list, and the names
> would reference keys configured somewhere else (perhaps another
> DHCP option, but since I haven't seen encrypted DHCP, this
> might not work).  In other words, I don't know, but I think
> that if it was DHCP, it would be better as a separate option.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> > 
> > So in your new proposal, how did/do users Joe and Bob get
> > defined with their secret keys etc at the agent side?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> 
> -- 
> Mark A. Bakke
> Cisco Systems
> mbakke@cisco.com
> 763.398.1054
>