Hi,
TACACS+ is a protocol widely deployed, based upon a draft specification that
Cisco submitted in 1998, but never completed to RFC status. The original draft
has been tidied and lightly enhanced and resubmitted, with the intent to
finally get it published as a standard.
The best fit that we
ADs and with the IESG)
>
>Scot
>
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>>wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> TACACS+ is a protocol widely deployed, based upon a draft specification
>>that Cisco submitted in 1998, but never completed to RFC status
Many Thanks Scott.
Re-submitted.
Regards,
Doug
On 12/06/2015 10:47, "Scott O. Bradner" wrote:
>
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:45 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>>wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Scott,
>>
>> Should I unsubmit the original?
>
>yes if
Please note the following concerning the document content:
The majority of the document is a cleaned and tidied refresh of the original
draft.
However, included in the document is a new feature that we propose for
discussion: Support for TLS using a new packet type allows the TACACS protocol
to
e that expired draft is draft-grant-tacacs-02. Is RFC 1492 also
relevant?
Thanks,
--David
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 8:52 AM
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] TACA
;I may be biased, but I have read the doc, and I support the WG working
>on it. I agree with your last sentiment that this would be good to
>final document this with industry consensus.
>
>One thing I wonder is if there shouldn't be some version change for the
>support of TLS
Hi Eric, Owen,
Thanks for the comments.
The intent at this point is for the "ip" protocol to cover both IPV4 and IPV6,
as with current practice.
Documenting the format of addresses is an interesting point. Certainly we would
defer detailed representation to the respective RFCs. Up to this poin
Hi Robert,
Many thanks, we really appreciate your comments. We will correct the two
issues you raised on the next upload, and check on the email issue.
Best regards,
Thorsten, Andrej, Doug,
On 01/12/2015 03:32, "opsawg-requ...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>Send OPSAWG mailing list submissions to
>
Š Apologies, just an attention grabbing headline. No specific AI support
has been added to T+ protocol to help play go, but the new version has
been uploaded with corrections after first round of comments. TACACS+
still restricted to plain AAA at this time!
The author collective would be grateful
Hi Alan,
TACACS+ cannot compete with RADIUS in the area RADIUS is strong: for
Network access. The authors have no interest in trying to do so.
TACACS+ in 2016 has quite a different use case: for device administration,
where it is widely deployed by multiple vendors. Its application for
device adm
Let me follow up on that, to make sure there are no obstacles form that
perspective.
On 11/02/2016 17:09, "t.petch" wrote:
>
>
>Tom Petch
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Andrej Ota"
>Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:29 PM
>
>
>> I'll try to answer multiple points from multiple e-mai
Certainly we will add more detail to the specification to ensure that
there is no ambiguity that:
1) The focus of the specification is to support the device administration
use case, and to describe what this means.
2) That there is no intent to compete with other protocols (such as
RADIUS/DIAMETER
I believe the content isn¹t entirely vendor specific. For example, for
command authorisation, the standard authorisation packet from the document
is:
service=shell
cmd=
cmd-arg=
cmd-arg=
...
This level of content is specified in the document, but if the comment is
that it is insufficiently clear
On 11/02/2016 20:21, "OPSAWG on behalf of opsawg-requ...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>Send OPSAWG mailing list submissions to
> opsawg@ietf.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>or, via email, send a message with subjec
little time, but I think we can use this to get a good
outcome, thanks for your patient input!
Thanks,
Regards,
Doug.
On 11/02/2016 22:59, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On Feb 11, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>wrote:
>> In terms of the data on top of the protocol, suc
We¹d be more than happy to split into two documents, the first being a
tidy up of the current deployed protocol, but focussed towards the device
admin use case as we discussed yesterday, and a second to deal with the
crypto issue in a backwards-compatible way.
It sounds like this would help de-mud
Hi Warren,
I am one of the contributing authors in this document. I sincerely
apologise for submitting a document which seemed to evoke passion in
OpsAWG ;-)
As you can tell from my email address, I work for Cisco, which provided
some input in taking the original TACACS and evolving it to TACACS+
Many thanks Alan, Stefan, Joe and Joel for the detailed review and useful
feedback,
Very much appreciated!
On 22/04/2016 20:00, "OPSAWG on behalf of opsawg-requ...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>Send OPSAWG mailing list submissions to
> opsawg@ietf.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wi
Hello all.
A new version of the T+ informational note has been uploaded.
For information:
Version 3 loaded last week has many revisions from the last round of
comments.
Version 4 loaded this week has some minor mods/clarifications on US-ASCII
vs UTF-8.
Would appreciate any further reviews.
T
Thank you again Alan for more quality feedback!
Regards,
Doug
> On 15 Jul 2016, at 16:38, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
>> The Security Considerations section is in the middle of the document, where
>> it's typically at the end. That's a minor nit.
We hope that this upload addresses the last comments. Please let us know
if there are any further concerns.
Many thanks,
Thorsten, Andrej, doug.
On 20/08/2016 22:00, "OPSAWG on behalf of opsawg-requ...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>Send OPSAWG mailing list submissions to
> opsawg@ietf.org
>
>To subs
Hi Alan,
Thank you for your detailed review so far. When we get the last
instalment, we¹ll categorise the comments and respond.
Best regards,
Doug.
On 06/10/2016 14:56, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On Oct 6, 2016, at 6:00 AM, t.petch wrote:
>> Alan is right to pick up on the style - philosophical -
Hi Alan,
Regarding the security concern, the approach we have with the current
document is:
1) A statement that the protocol does not provide security in a modern
environment.
2) The two common approaches to support T+ so that it may be used.
3) An indication that a version with built-in securit
otocol that
“provides the function, not the security” has no right to live, and ideally
should be stamped out – but in any case not rewarded by receiving a “standard”
status.
So hold the publication until your (3) comes along. In the meanwhile, enjoy the
vulnerabilities of your deployed implementa
with a little modification) rather than analysing security of each part,
is because such an inclusive statement covers the situation completely,
and no one will be under any illusions.
Thanks,
Regards,
Doug.
On 06/10/2016 19:51, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On Oct 6, 2016, at 1:34 PM,
Many thanks Alan for the thorough review.
We¹ll collate all your comments and respond shortly.
On 12/10/2016 22:35, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
> My $0.02 on the contents of the Security Considerations section. I'm
>sure I've missed things.
>
> Please also comment if the suggestions here are wrong
Thanks Alexander.
We have had a good set of feedback also from other members (Thanks in
particular to Alan DeKok) and will be uploading a new version shortly.
We will also mix in the comments from yourself.
Please see some comments inline, feel free to shout if you think I¹ve
misunderstood or ju
Hi,
Please see inline...
On 04/11/2016 17:22, "Alexander Clouter" wrote:
>Thanks for the reply, just two or three notes on your reply.
>
>Thanks!
>
>On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 01:12:13PM +0000, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote:
>>>
>>>> session_id
>
Hi,
Please see inline, this is my interpretation, would welcome other points
of view.
I think this is all determinable from the doc but will check/update if it
is a little hidden.
On 30/11/2016 16:43, "Alexander Clouter" wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I cannot find the guidance in the draft, but I am looki
Dear Working Group,
We wanted to respond to recent posts regarding the TACACS+ informational
draft, and update on status and intent:
1) Regarding the use of uncredited text from Alan DeKok:
It is certainly the case that Alan has spent time actively engaged in the
process of critiquing this docum
Hi Alan,
So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible,
and where we can apply then, to the doc.
Would you have a preferred method that we responded?
Thanks.
On 12/05/2017 20:47, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On May 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Hi Alan,
So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an individual
response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that together.
On 13/05/2017 12:59, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On May 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>wrote:
>>
>
I like this idea!
As it happens, the original motivation was simply to secure T+ and clean
up the text of the original draft spec. We were less radical that moving
to JSON (that¹s a nice idea ;-)) we originally intended to support the old
protocol for backwards compatibility and add TLS for the mu
Dear Alan,
Below is a simple textual concatenation and minor (hopefully lossless)
edit of comments you kindly sent for the October revision (version 5),
We will work through this list, and reply with an item-by item response,
(In place of previous mode of updating the doc to make v6) and then
hop
those points, can hopefully get us to a
agreeable version of the document for v7.
On 14/05/2017 15:06, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>
>> On May 13, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>> So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re look
>Regards,
>Uri
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 14, 2017, at 10:08, Alan DeKok wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 13, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So rather than directly updating the doc,
The lack of interactivity was more our fault than any one else's, we took
Alan¹s comments and incorporated them into the version we uploaded in Feb.
What we should have done was collate Alan¹s comments to promote
discussion. We¹re attempting to rectify than that now:
1) We put Alan¹s comments on
ee what I see - if not, I will let you know.
>
>And my Reply All to Ignas gets an SMTP bounce
>"5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1 ... User
>unknown'"
>
>Probably part of the expansion of
>draft-ietf-opsawg-tac...@ietf.org
>
>Mmmm2
>
>T
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tianran Zhou"
>To: "t.petch" ; "Alan DeKok"
>; "Ignas Bagdonas"
>Cc: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" ; ;
>; ;
>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:18 AM
>
>Thanks Tom for pointing this out.
&
On 19/05/2017 18:11, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On May 19, 2017, at 6:38 AM, t.petch wrote:
>>
>> Another fresh topic, so a slight change in the Subject:
>>
>> I think that the use of the term ASCII needs more thought.
>
> Speaking only as an opinionated WG member... yes.
>
>> d) in some places,
As always, thanks for the comments!
Regards,
Doug
Inline...
On 17/05/2017 15:54, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On May 16, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>wrote:
>> Many items are marked with just [Agree], if it seems there is a trivial
>>way to adjust according
is opaque type as needed and
> required by the security protocols utilized.
>
> dataAn opaque type representing data obtained from
> measurements.
>
> Names of objects are generally assumed to be unique within an
> implementation.
>
>
15:03, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On May 20, 2017, at 8:24 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>wrote:
>>> If the field is unused, the spec should say the field is ignored, and
>>> treated as if it did not exist.
>>
>> Agreed, though I¹m not sure how an u
>in a username, anyone?
>
>RFC4234 is to me a good example of an RFC that starts with RFC20 (or the
>equivalent thereof) and produces something more usable.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>On 5/19/17 7:51 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote:
>>
>> On 19/05/2017 18:11, "Alan DeKo
y rewritten by the recent submissions.
Thanks,
Regards,
Doug.
On 17/09/2017 15:26, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
>On Sep 16, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>wrote:
>>
>> We¹re preparing the next revision. Regarding attribute value encoding,
>> we¹re pr
encapsulated upgrade approach
for implementors, and welcome feedback.
Regards,
The Authors.
From: Alan DeKok
Date: Tuesday, 30 August 2022 at 21:17
To: John Heasly
Cc: Michael Richardson , Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
, opsawg@ietf.org , Andrej Ota
, Thorsten Dahm
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS+ SSH
.”
Regards.
From: Alan DeKok
Date: Thursday, 8 September 2022 at 14:56
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , Andrej Ota , Thorsten
Dahm , John Heasly
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS+ SSH Enhancements Document
On Sep 8, 2022, at 6:47 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote:
> The alternat
the data field paradigm discussed earlier in the
thread. We will follow with a document that describes the complete solution in
detail.
From: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Date: Thursday, 8 September 2022 at 16:47
To: Alan DeKok
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , Andrej Ota , Thorsten
Dahm , John Heasly
Subject
Hi Joe,
An update is underway, current phase is to examine RFC 9325, which seems very
relevant, to see what can be delegated to it.
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Date: Monday, 23 October 2023 at 18:04
To: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Status of T+ TLS work
Dear OPSAWG,
Many thank for all the comments on the Secure TACACS+ (TLS) draft v3.
We have submitted a revised doc which intention to address the concerns and
comments. It is rather later than originally planned, our apologies for the
delay. We will look forward to addressing the corresponding
: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , John Heasly , Andrej
Ota
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Submission of new version of TACACS+ TLS Spec (V4)
On Dec 22, 2023, at 11:53 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
wrote:
> Some brief notes regarding the broader topics raised in v3, all items of
> course, ar
at 14:34
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: John Heasly , Andrej Ota
Subject: RE: Submission of new version of TACACS+ TLS Spec (V4)
Hi Authors, all,
Many thanks for your effort on this document.
I managed finally to read the new version. I’m afraid that some of the comments
in
d...@google.com
, and...@ota.si , Douglas Gash
(dcmgash) , car...@ipsec.org ,
lol.gr...@gmail.com , opsawg@ietf.org ,
RFC Editor
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8907 (7754)
Hi Rebecca, authors, OPSAWG,
I think that this errata is valid for both 5.1 and 6.1. I also noted a similar
omissions or new comments
and rectify quickly.
And we will endeavour to respond ASAP to any other comments of any kind on the
doc.
Many thanks,
Regards,
The Authors.
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Date: Wednesday, 20 March 2024 at 15:27
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , Douglas Gash (dcmgash
Many Thanks Mohamed for the time taken and the detailed review.
We’ll work through these (and reach out for any clarifications) ASAP.
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Wednesday, 17 April 2024 at 16:42
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: John Heasley , Andrej Ota
Subject
document is getting
stable more and more.
Cheers,
Med
De : OPSAWG De la part de Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Envoyé : mercredi 20 mars 2024 16:40
À : opsawg@ietf.org
Cc : John Heasley ; Andrej Ota
Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-06.txt
Dear OPSAWG
Thanks Mohamed, please see inline…
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Friday, 19 April 2024 at 18:31
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Cc: John Heasley , Andrej Ota , Thorsten
Dahm , opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-06.txt.
Hi Douglas
related to this draft version, shortly.
Many thanks.
The Authors.
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool
Date: Tuesday, 23 April 2024 at 14:46
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , Andrej Ota ,
John Heasley , Thorsten Dahm
Subject: Confirm submission of I-D draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13
Hi,
The IETF
Will do. Would it be beneficial to enact an immediate new version upload for
this?
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Tuesday, 23 April 2024 at 16:05
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: Andrej Ota , John Heasley , Thorsten
Dahm
Subject: RE: Confirm submission of I-D draft
Many thanks for the review, Russ!
Please see below the initial changes based upon your comments, hopefully they
have met the intent. Please advise if the updates are not addressing what you
had in mind, or for any concerns.
Best Regards,
The Authors.
From: Russ Housley via Datatracker
Date:
SHOULD include the server
domain name in the SNI "server_name" extension of the client hello.
Certificate Provisioning is out of scope of this document.
From: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Date: Monday, 22 April 2024 at 10:21
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Cc: John Heasley , Andrej Ota
Thanks Mohamed, we will upload a new version with these changes,
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2024 at 18:03
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Cc: John Heasley , Andrej Ota , Thorsten
Dahm , opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs
Many thanks Tirumal for the time taken for the review, and insights. We will
prepare a new revision (rev 9) of the document ASAP, with corrections from your
comments.
Best Regards,
The Authors.
From: tirumal reddy
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2024 at 15:26
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Cc: draft-
Thanks Valery, we will incorporate fixes for these along with fixes for
Tirumal’s comments into rev 9 ASAP.
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2024 at 14:38
To: Valery Smyslov
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org
, opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Request to review d
2024 at 17:57
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
, Andrej Ota , John Heasley
, Thorsten Dahm
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-09.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-09.txt has been
successfully submitted by Douglas C
Hi Rod,
Many thanks for your kind words and previous feedback which helped
significantly.
Regarding your comment, It is a good proposal, but just to clarify, the paras
are intended to convey from the flow perspective: para 4 covers the client
start, para 5 then deals with server behaviour i.e.
Hi Arnaud,
The need for enhancing the flow for SSH key authentication is clear, and the
initial version of the document covered this to some degree. However, after
discussion in the group the doc was split to cover TLS (as a priority), and a
second document that is in preparation for SSH keys.
That is certainly reasonable, we will add.
From: EBALARD Arnaud
Date: Monday, 1 July 2024 at 12:21
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: Thorsten Dahm , John Heasly ,
Andrej Ota
Subject: RE: OPSAWG Digest, Vol 205, Issue 21
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for that feedback.
As you pointed
Thanks, yes, though this is now a little outdated based on further discussions.
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2024 at 08:13
To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) , EBALARD Arnaud
, opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: John Heasly , Andrej Ota
Subject: RE: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13
Hi Russ,
Many thanks for taking the time to review.
Before we dig into the issues raised, I’d like to check to see if your comments
spring from the doc misleading due to bad wording, or if you have in mind a
deeper issue.
What the doc is trying to express (and we will refactor a little to make
Dear Opsawg et al,
1) Discussion on External PSK (Related to part of Mohamed’s point 2 below).
Our distillation of the thrust of Alan’s main advice is: The doc needs to
either commit to fully documenting external PSK and its ramifications or
preclude it. The truth is, our doc merely says: TLS
Thanks you for your feedback and insights.
We have uploaded a new version to include corrections.
We have deferred ref to RFC9608 at this stage, as we are still checking to
determine if the provisions would be relevant to the TLS cases used for T+
transport.
If we have missed anything or you h
Apologies for the delay, For some reason the mails did not get through until
fellow author kindly forwarded them, disturbed by my rudeness for not having
responded.
Thanks Joe, all very valid and will fix forthwith,
-- Forwarded message -
From: Joe Clarke mailto:jcla...@cisco.co
Apologies for delay Alan, I have goofed with mail forwarding.
We still have some work to do on the security section. I will check to see
which items we missed outside the security section, as I thought we had them
all covered.
Clearly the last upload took rather longer than initially planned. W
section completed directly after.
On 20/03/2018, 12:05, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
wrote:
>
> Apologies for delay Alan, I have goofed with mail forwarding.
>
> We still have some work to do on the
Hello OPSAWG,
Regarding the T+ document: Version 9 (below) had a small number of mainly
typographic corrections.
We believe that the main area of deficiency in the document is section 9
(Security).
Our plan is to post this specific section to the list for review next week
(after some initial
Hello Opsawg,
We have uploaded a new version of the TACACS+ informational draft which
includes corrections for typos over the document as a whole, but also revised
the security section. We anticipate this security section will get most
comments, so it is reproduced below.
We will endeavor to b
Hi Alan,
I hope that we can address your concerns. I think the main points that you
raise the we (the authors) need to address are:
1) The security section
2) Reactivity of the authors
3) Change Tracking
1) The Security Section
The starting point is that we know that TACACS+ needs enhancement
Dear OPSAWG,
Please find below a first attempt to run through the differences between the
document version 6 (Feb 10 2017) and version 10 (April 15 2018).
The Diff was generated using the “Change Bar” option of the Document History
page. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac
Dear Opsawg,
A status update on informational T+ Draft:
1) Current discussion between Andrej and (mainly) Joe Clarke on some section 9
(Security), ongoing, Andrej/Authors will respond to Joe’s latest comments
shortly.
2) Diffs between Version 6 and Version 10 with brief annotations of each diff
Hi Joe,
We will update on 1) by end of the week.
2) Was sent previously, any feedback on it welcome.
3) I will send out initial proposal today to the list.
Thanks,
Doug.
On 27/06/2018, 16:13, "Joe Clarke" wrote:
On 6/10/18 04:43, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote:
>
Dear Opsawg,
The TACACS+ Draft Version 9 contains a security section, the last three
subsections of which are recommendations. There is some overlap and repetition
between sections where the same issues are covered from different angles, which
we believe may lead to ambiguity.
So instead we pr
Hi Alan,
Thank you for the response. Please see responses below.
On 28/06/2018, 14:22, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
wrote:
>
> Dear Opsawg,
>
> The TACACS+ Draft Version 9 contains a security s
, 17:23, "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" wrote:
Hi Alan,
Thank you for the response. Please see responses below.
On 28/06/2018, 14:22, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
wrote:
>
Hi,
I believe the MUST/SHOULD debate pertains only to the recommendations section,
the rest of the documents sticks to description of current status apart from
the documented deprecations that no sensible implementation would do today,
i.e. a few deletions but no updates.
The discussion focuss
your question on
current implmentations,
On 09/07/2018, 23:55, "Joe Clarke" wrote:
On 7/6/18 09:39, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Below is revised version of the subsection, based upon Alan’s comments,
>
> Many thanks.
Dear OPSAWG,
Below is a revised version of the recommendations. I have understood the
consensus to be, that we should keep the strength of the recommendations, but
explain how these should be applies in the real world with many, potentially
very old implementations in place.
Consequently, pret
Thanks Alan...
> On 13 Jul 2018, at 14:30, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>> wrote:
>> 9.5 Deployment Best Practices
>>
>> With respect to the observations about the security issues described above,
>> a
Dear Alan,
Do the changes below clarify the intent sufficiently? (please find diff below)
The changes are mainly in first section with a few tweaks in later sections.
Many thanks.
9.5 Deployment Best Practices
With respect to the observations about the security issues described above, a
netw
Thanks Alan…
On 14/07/2018, 15:00, "Alan DeKok" wrote:
On Jul 14, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
wrote:
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> Do the changes below clarify the intent sufficiently? (please find diff
below) The changes are mainly in first sec
Hi Joe,
Thanks Joe, all useful comments. I believe that most of them were caught in the
previous upload (in which we responded to Alan’s last mail), I will make sure
that any missing are in the next.
On 16/07/2018, 0:20, "Joe Clarke" wrote:
On 7/14/18 00:57, Douglas Gash (dcmg
Apologies for the interruption in the conversation.
Attached should incorporate yours and Alan’s latest comments, and some client
side comments have been addressed.
Please find attached.
Many thanks.
On 16/07/2018, 6:56, "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" wrote:
Hi Joe,
Dear Opsawg,
Revision 11 of the T+ information draft has been uploaded. The changes cover:
- Updates to Security section 9, primarily sections 9.5-9.7 has been
rationalized into a single section
- Updates to CHAP authentication, removing erroneous paras.
- Corrections of some typographic/style e
Confirming I am not aware of any IPR relating to this draft.
From: Thorsten Dahm
Date: Thursday, 11 October 2018 at 16:11
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)"
Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , Andrej Ota , "Douglas
Gash (dcmgash)" , "dcar...@viptela.com"
, "lol.gr.
Hi Tom,
Many thanks for your comments. Most will be resolved simply in next upload
as a matter of course (see below), but would be good to clarify one point:
I did wonder if TACACS had ever impinged on IANA and so would
this I-D
become a referenc
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see responses from authors inline, marked “TA”. Action items from this
mail to update the document are marked: [AI-TA] to mean: “action item for the
authors”.
On 13/05/2019, 13:54, "Stewart Bryant via Datatracker" wrote:
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Re
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see responses from authors inline, marked “TA”. Action items from this
mail to update the document are marked: [AI-TA] to mean: “action item for the
authors”.
On 14/05/2019, 17:33, "Deborah Brungard via Datatracker"
wrote:
Deborah Brungard has entered
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see responses from authors inline, marked “TA”. Action items from this
mail to update the document are marked: [AI-TA] to mean: “action item for the
authors”.
On 15/05/2019, 19:03, "Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker"
wrote:
Mirja Kühlewind has entered t
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see responses from authors inline, marked “TA”. Action items from this
mail to update the document are marked: [AI-TA] to mean: “action item for the
authors”.
On 16/05/2019, 7:21, "Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker" wrote:
Alexey Melnikov has entered the
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see responses from authors inline, marked “TA”. Action items from this
mail to update the document are marked: [AI-TA] to mean: “action item for the
authors”.
On 15/05/2019, 19:55, "Alissa Cooper via Datatracker" wrote:
Alissa Cooper has entered the fo
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
