Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: (with COMMENT)

From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 04:15:50 +0000

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, 0:11, "Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: No Objection
    
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)

    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs/

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    * Section 8.1.
    
    "IPV6 address text representation defined in RFC 4291 [RFC4291]"
    
    I would much prefer using RFC5952 here as it tightens rules a bit over RFC4291
    and cuts down the flexibility to make text comparisons easier.
TA> Agreed, will update [AI-TA]    

    "Stardate is canonically inconsistent and so SHOULD NOT be used."
    
    as in "Acting Captain's log, Stardate 2258.42. We have had no word from Captain
    Pike..."? I agree that it is canonically inconsistent but this will be very
    confusing for non-Trekkies. Is this really needed here?

TA> Agreed, will purge. [AI-TA]