Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:20:49PM -0400, Michael Richardson: > > Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just for clarification: rather than re-inventing a format, the intent > > we had is to try to take a snippet from one part of the current T+ > > protocol, remove the fixed fields, and then re-use that in another > > part. > > You invented a new format. It needs a piece of bespoke buggy code to parse > it.
No, perhaps you are misinformed. It is not a new format, it is the format currently used in the authorization and accounting parts of tacacs, except with no fixed fields. AVPs are its own version of TLVs that have existed since the beginning of tacacs, so that code has existed as long. We are not eager to remove the fixed fields that exist or make any drastic changes. Douglas assembled an example to ensure that we understood by example what Alan's comment was about - existence of fixed fields at all or that we'd originally proposed adding a fixed field (to make Authen consistent with Author/Acct) or something else entirely. > Please consider RFC8949: CBOR. If you want the authentication part changed to CBOR or whatever the flavour of the month is, then you also want authorization and accounting to change? IE: you want a complete restructure of all of the packet formats used in tacacs. I do not see how that is less likely to result in bugs in areas unrelated to (de)serialization and will impede implementation. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
