Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 07:40:18 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF.

        Title           : The TACACS+ Protocol
        Authors         : Thorsten Dahm
                          Andrej Ota
                          Douglas C. Medway Gash
                          David Carrel
                          Lol Grant
	Filename        : draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-08.txt
	Pages           : 43
	Date            : 2018-02-19

Abstract:
   TACACS+ provides Device Administration for routers, network access
   servers and other networked computing devices via one or more
   centralized servers.  This document describes the protocol that is
   used by TACACS+.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-08
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-08

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:52:13 -0500

Thank you, authors.  Would you send a synopsis of the changes to the
list as well as what you feel is left to do?  It would be good to spur
some more discussion on this.

I read through the text, focusing on the changes, and found a few typos
and nits.

Section 1:

OLD:

The normative description of Legacy features such as ARAP and
outbound authentication have

NEW:

The normative description of Legacy features such as ARAP and
outbound authentication has

===

Section 1:

s/authroization/authorization/

===

Section 3.3

You have one reference to "Single connection Mode".  Why is the 'c'
lowercase here?  For consistency, it should be uppercase.

===

Section 3.4

OLD:

For example, the client try alternative methods, if they are available,

NEW:

For example, the client tries alternative methods, if they are available,

===

Section 3.4

s/implmentation/implementation/

===

Section 3.5

OLD:

.  for example

NEW:

.  For example

===

Section 3.7

OLD:

refer to section section

NEW:

refer to section

===

Section 4.1

You refer to the Unix su(1) command in man page style notation.  This
may not be fully understood by all readers.  I think it would be better
to describe what su does in a short phrase (This is comparable to the
"su" command on Unix, which substitutes the current user's identity with
another).

===

Section 4.4.2.3

s/alays/always/

===

Sections 4.4.2.4 and 4.4.2.5

OLD:

The TACACS+ server must rejects

NEW:

The TACACS+ server must reject

===

Section 4.4.3

s/temrination/termination/

===

Section 4.4.3

You say, "oplease refer to section" (which has a typo).  But I don't
think you need the please at all here.

===

Section 5

s/clients actions/client's actions/

===

Section 5.1

s/corrsponds/corresponds/

===

Section 7.1

Stardate is canonically inconsistent

:-)

===

Section 7.2

Under nohangup, I think you have a typo with "authorization.y."  Not
sure if you intended something else there, or that "y." just crept in.

===

Section 8

s/()such as/(such as/

===

Section 8

s/starts starts/starts/

===

Section 8

s/reuthentication/reauthentication/

===

Section 8

You mention su again, but do so without man page notation.  you also
refer to unix instead of Unix.  Perhaps a good solution is to point to
one of the web=based man page gateways to create a true xref for su.

===

Section 9.1

s/For this reasons/For these reasons/

===

Section 9.2

s/which may me/which may be/

===

Section 9.5

s/apropriate/appropriate/

===

Section 9.5

s/send send secret keys/send secret keys/

Joe

On 2/19/18 10:40, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:27:04 +0100

A quick review shows that many of my comments have been addressed, thanks.  This significantly clarifies the document.

  Some comments are still unaddressed.  And, the Security Considerations section contains substantial portions of my text as I pointed out earlier, with no acknowledgement that this is the case.

  Alan DeKok.