On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:27:35AM -0500, Robert Story wrote:
> And last but not least, the 5343 interoperability report.
thanks for the report. My understanding is that the following
paragraph is documenting an observation made during implementation:
Note that the localEngineID value is intended to
be used as a special value for the contextEngineID field in the
ScopedPDU. It MUST NOT be used as a value to identify an SNMP
engine; that is, this value MUST NOT be used in the snmpEngineID.0
scalar [RFC3418] or in the msgAuthoritativeEngineID field in the
securityParameters of the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414].
Due to the MUST language, the text reads like a quote from RFC 5343,
but it seems this is a suggestion for a clarification to be added to
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:54:50 +0100 Juergen wrote:
JS> Due to the MUST language, the text reads like a quote from RFC 5343,
JS> but it seems this is a suggestion for a clarification to be added to
JS> RFC 5343.
No, it's a quote from 3.1. Appendix A lists the requirements (using RFC
2119 keywords) that were not directly testable.
Senior Software Engineer
SPARTA (dba Cobham Analytic Soloutions)
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:52:22 -0500, Robert Story <[hidden email]> said:
RS> No, it's a quote from 3.1. Appendix A lists the requirements (using RFC
RS> 2119 keywords) that were not directly testable.
IE, testing negatives is difficult. You can't test that no where in
someone else's code do they incorrectly use the local engineID. The
best you can do is complain if you ever see one and hope you never see another.
Cobham Analytic Solutions
Isms mailing list
[hidden email] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms