Re: Disman WG last call ondraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-02.txt

Randy,

Sorry, my last email slipped out of my mail editor
while I was typing with a wrong keyboard driver.


--On 01.07.2004 11:59 h -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Hi -
>
>> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:41 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Disman] Disman WG last call ondraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-02.txt
>>
>
>> I have some concerns with respect to the Security Considerations section.
>> It is not aligned with the latest guidelines (http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html),
>> probably reflecting the style or the guidelines that were in place by the time
>> RFC 2925 was published.
>
> (As WG chair) Clearly, this must be fixed before we ask our AD to take
> it to the IESG.
>
> Juergen Q.: could you re-spin this before the i-d cutoff?

Yes.  I am currently working on the issues raised by Eduardo.
Fixing the security consideration should not be a big problem.

>> However, I miss the clarity of the current text, and
>> especially the enumeration of the security sensitive objects in the MIB modules,
>> the explicit description of the risks associated with their mis-configuration or
>> disclosure, and the explicit recommendation to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable
>> cryptographic security.
> ...
>
> (As technical contributor) I rather like the current text.  I'd like to see it retained
> (except perhaps the first paragraph, which would become redundant) and
> merged with the additional text required by the boilerplate.

I will try to satisfy both sides: including the new boilerplate text and listing
vulnerable objects as well as keeping all but the first paragraphs of the current
version.

Thanks,

    Juergen

> Randy
>
>
>