Good question, Tom. As a contributor, I think a bis might make things more
understandable given the amount of augmented objects. I’d like to hear from
the authors and other T+ TLS 1.3 implementors.
Joe
From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 at 08:53
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>, opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: A YANG Model for Terminal Access Controller
Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) over TLS 1.3
p.3
Discussion Note: RFC 9105bis or keep the current augment design.
Is this a topic that needs resolving prior to adoption?
I do not know what the ramifications are.
Tom Petch
________________________________________
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: 22 October 2024 14:23
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG]CALL FOR ADOPTION: A YANG Model for Terminal Access Controller
Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) over TLS 1.3
The IPR poll has concluded (no known IPR has been disclosed), and we would like
to start a two week adoption poll for
draft-boucadair-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang/>.
Please respond on-list with support and especially comments.
The adoption call will run until November 5.
Thanks.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
