Dear all,
So we would have:
- draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13 updating RFC 8907
- RFC9105bis that would
* reference draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13 (as opposed to RFC8907)
* update RFC9105
* NOT contain this sentence:
Though being a standard module, this module does not endorse the
security mechanisms of the TACACS+ protocol (RFC 8907), and TACACS+
MUST be used within a secure deployment
Right? That makes sense to me.
What I am not clear about is: would draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang
morph into RFC9105bis or would draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang be
REPLACED-BY RFC9105bis, which implies starting from scratch with a new
draft?
Regards, Benoit
On 11/22/2024 8:02 AM, Wubo (lana) wrote:
Hi Benoit, Med, all,
I support the bis definition of Tacacs+ TLS YANG.
The warning in the abstract of RFC9105 is a recommendation of security AD and a
reminder when using this YANG standard. As Med said, RFC8907 published as
information has security vulnerabilities, but all the IETF YANG models are
published as standard. Therefore, related warnings are added to the both
abstract and security sections of the 9105 per recommendations from security AD.
I think Tacacs+ TLS has solve the security concern of 8907, so no need to keep this
warning in the abstract. And the warning can be applied to "shared-secret" only.
Regards,
Bo
-----Original Message-----
From:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 9:29 PM
To: Benoit Claise<benoit.cla...@huawei.com>;opsawg@ietf.org; Wubo
(lana)<lana.w...@huawei.com>; Zhengguangying (Walker)<zhengguangy...@huawei.com>;
wangzitao<wangzi...@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG]draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang: 9105bis vs. augments
9105
Hi Benoît, all,
This was added during the IESG review in
-11:https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-10&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-11&difftype=--html
Unless I'm mistaken, the main concern was rooted in the status of 8907:
Publishing a PS for an Info spec with known security vulnerabilities. The
authors may have more context to share.
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Benoit Claise<benoit.cla...@huawei.com> Envoyé : jeudi 21
novembre 2024 11:43 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
<mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>;opsawg@ietf.org; Wubo (lana)
<lana.w...@huawei.com>;zhengguangy...@huawei.com;
wangzi...@huawei.com Objet : Re:
[OPSAWG]draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang: 9105bis vs. augments
9105
Hi RFC 9105 authors, Med,
Do you have some background regarding the reasoning behind this
unusual warning in the abstract?
RFC 9105 authors,
Can you share your views regarding a RFC9105bis or continue with this
draft?
Regards, Benoit
On 11/6/2024 6:30 PM,mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,
This point is recorded in the draft for discussion, hence this
thread.
The abstract of 9105 includes an unusual warning with normative
language in the abstract:
This document defines a Terminal Access Controller Access-
Control
System Plus (TACACS+) client YANG module that augments the
System
Management data model, defined in RFC 7317, to allow
devices to make
use of TACACS+ servers for centralized Authentication,
Authorization,
and Accounting (AAA). Though being a standard module, this
module
does not endorse the security mechanisms of the TACACS+
protocol (RFC
8907), and TACACS+ MUST be used within a secure deployment.
My preference is to go for a bis to cleanup things and remove
that note.
Please share your thoughts/preference.
Cheers,
Med
_________________________________________________________________
_____
______________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
diffuses,
exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message
par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire
ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce
message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law; they
should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages
that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list --opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an
email to
opsawg-le...@ietf.org
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used
or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
