Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01.txt

From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:12:03 +0000

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 point, we intended not to reference specific RFCs so that the format is driven by the context, as Owen suggested. We would of course, review that if recommended by the group.

Many thanks,

Regards,

Doug.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen DeLong <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: 16 November 2015 at 19:17
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01.txt
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

> On Nov 16, 2015, at 04:27 , Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> Important document indeed.
>
> I have a comment on section 7.1 where "ip" as a protocol (the double
> quotes are from the I-D) is mentioned but does it mean IPv4 or IPv6 or
> both?

Surely one would hope that it's meaning is contextual to the time of reading
and that today it would mean {IPv4, IPv6} and that sometime in the future,
it will likely mean {IPv6} and beyond that come to mean {IPv6,...}.

>
> In the same section, may I suggest to describe the syntax of the 'addr'
> field?

Wouldn't the syntax of the addr field be inherently dependent on the
RFC defining the IP version in question in the previous context?

Owen

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--
Thorsten Dahm

Network Engineer
Google Ireland Ltd.
The Gasworks, Barrow Street
Dublin 4,  Ireland

Registered in Dublin, Ireland
Registration Number: 368047

---

From: Robert Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:31:49 -0500

I read through the draft and found a couple of minor items that might 
help with readability.  Please excuse me if this has been covered 
already.  I searched the archives but didn't find these specific things.

1.  Introduction/Status of this Memo

The introduction repeats much of the text from Status of this Memo. It 
also includes text saying the document expires on December 10, 2015 (the 
old expiration date from -00).  You can probably remove all of that.

2.  ''The Draft'' is mentioned before being defined

Technically it's never really defined, but [TheDraft] is a reference and 
I know what was intended.  It would be nice if it was treated as a link 
by the HTMLifier like the RFC/BCP statements.  It might be converted if 
the reference is put beside each use, I'm not familiar with the way the 
HTML thing works.

It might also be nice just to include a blurb before the first mention, 
or rewrite the paragraph to define it.

"A wide range of TACACS+ clients and servers are already deployed in the 
field, based upon a draft RFC from 1997 [TheDraft], hereafter referred 
to as ''The Draft''."

Finally, I want to say that I really appreciate you guys working on 
this.  TACACS+ has security and convenience issues that I've lived with 
all my network life.  I would very much like to see this adopted.

Also, I'm not sure if this is a fault of it being a draft or if it's 
easy to fix, but the email address listed in 
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01 
([email-masked]) bounces.