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

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 16:11:52 -0700

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.

"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?