Hi,
sorry to chime in, but this is getting out of hand.
This "new format" you think you're seeing isn't new, it's a slight
variation of the current implementations, with portions copied from
authorization/accounting to authentication, with wider argument lengths.
It perfectly suits the current code and implementations.
The current packet formats are optimized for efficient C code in
embedded systems, and it is in fact easy to parse them at that level,
even wIthout any auxilliary libaries (libcbor or whatever).
Nobody here is asking for TACACS+ 2.0, which would perhaps warant a new
format -- this is 1.2. There's absolutely no need to ask for CBOR or
any other over-engineered standard, the only thing needed here is common
sense. Nobody involved (as I hope and assume) wants a radical protocol
change.
Cheers,
Marc
Am 30.08.2022 um 23:44 schrieb Michael Richardson:
John Heasly <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
No, I'm a programmer who writes running code.
It is not a new format, it is the format currently used in the
Does existing code process this format *TODAY*?
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
