Subject: [Isms] multiple securityLevels

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:25:17 -0500

Hi,

I am unlikely to ever implement snmp/dtls, so if Robert and Wes feel
support for multiple securitylevels is really needed, let it happen.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:45:49 +0100

> support for multiple securitylevels is really needed, let it happen.

Unless there are any other opinions and arguments, I assume we will
continue with what we have in the current ID and leave the support
for multiple securityLevels in.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:03:22 -0800

>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:25:17 -0500, "David Harrington" <[email-masked]> said:

DH> I am unlikely to ever implement snmp/dtls, so if Robert and Wes feel
DH> support for multiple securitylevels is really needed, let it happen.

FYI, I actually have plans to implement it.  Half the problem is that
the text that people want to have inserted (everything is considered
authPriv) actually *prevents* me from implementing and conforming to the
standard.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions