Hi all, Given the feedback received so far, I will update the draft to proceed with the bis approach. Thanks.
@authors of 9105, please let me know if you want to be listed as co-authors. We can make the required changes to the authors list in -02. Cheers, Med De : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Envoyé : vendredi 22 novembre 2024 15:11 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org; Zhengguangying (Walker) <zhengguangy...@huawei.com>; wangzitao <wangzi...@huawei.com> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang: 9105bis vs. augments 9105 Yes, this was raised during the adoption call with my [contributor] opinion being that this I-D, if adopted, should become a 9105bis. I do not think we need another draft to do that. Joe From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Date: Friday, November 22, 2024 at 07:12 To: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com<mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>, Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com<mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>>, opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, Zhengguangying (Walker) <zhengguangy...@huawei.com<mailto:zhengguangy...@huawei.com>>, wangzitao <wangzi...@huawei.com<mailto:wangzi...@huawei.com>> Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang: 9105bis vs. augments 9105 Re-, draft-boucadair-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang was adopted with this note in since -00: "Discussion Note: RFC 9105bis or keep the current augment design.". If the WG decides a bis is worth here, the next iteration of draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang will be edited with that in mind + add an "Obsolete 9105" metadata. This is straightforward, IMO: i.e., no need to start from another yet new draft. Cheers, Med De : Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com<mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>> Envoyé : vendredi 22 novembre 2024 12:55 À : Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com<mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; Zhengguangying (Walker) <zhengguangy...@huawei.com<mailto:zhengguangy...@huawei.com>>; wangzitao <wangzi...@huawei.com<mailto:wangzi...@huawei.com>> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG]draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang: 9105bis vs. augments 9105 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<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com><mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 9:29 PM To: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com><mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com><mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>; Zhengguangying (Walker) <zhengguangy...@huawei.com><mailto:zhengguangy...@huawei.com>; wangzitao <wangzi...@huawei.com><mailto: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><mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com> Envoyé : jeudi 21 novembre 2024 11:43 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com><mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com><mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>; zhengguangy...@huawei.com<mailto:zhengguangy...@huawei.com>; wangzi...@huawei.com<mailto: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<mailto: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
