Randy Turner said:
>What I would not like to hear from folks is..."well,SNMP has no security",
and
>"well, SNMP doesn't do traps reliably". If you read the minutes from the
last
>IETF Plenary in L.A, specifically the SNMPv3 WG minutes, SNMPv3
implementation
>and availability after 6 months at "proposed" is already past where v2 was
>after two years at "proposed". The point is, we're designing stuff that
probably
>won't be deployed until 1999, when in network management circles SNMPv3
will reach
>the dominant position, if kept at its current pace of implementation.
>>SNMPv3 has some of the same security mechanisms at IPP, and you are going
>to have to reconcile these two models if you provide a backdoor to MIB
>data, whether you are reading, or writing these objects.
Gosh, let me count the number of printers that implement SNMPv3 ....
-- ZERO !!
Therefore if we allow access to the MIB Objects through IPP which includes
TLS, I contend there are no security problem. Accesssing MIB objects using
IPP would much, much more secure than accessing those same objects via the
currently popular SNMPv1 implementations.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************