Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 10:38:10PM -0800, Sandy Ginoza: > Hi John, > > Thank you for your notes. Please see our comments below. > > > > On Nov 13, 2025, at 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 03:28:45PM -0800, Sandy Ginoza: > >> Hi John, > >> > >> I’m not sure if we’re saying capitalized “Peer” is correct or if there is > >> a preference for the other update Med suggested: > >> > >> NEW2: > >> TLS TACACS+ connections are generally not long-lived. The connection > >> will be closed by either a peer if it encounters an error > >> or an inactivity timeout. > > > > hi. Sorry, I mean that capital P is correct. Meaning that either the > > server or the client may close the connection. > > > >> Regarding capitalization, seemingly, lowercase is consistent with use > >> throughout the document. The term is capitalized as the definition entry > >> in Section 2, but it is lowercased in running text. > > > > As editor, please educate/correct me. My understanding is that "Peer" is > > not the same as "peer"; the former having been defined in section 2. The > > distinction disambiguates which definition is intended. > > While we see that “Peer” is defined in section 2, the capitalized form only > appears in the instances noted below. Because “Peer” only seems to appear as > a term or at the beginning of a sentence, we did not realize capitalization > was important here. If changes are needed, please let us know. We are not > confident we can accurately differentiate between peer in general and Peer > defined in section 2. > > Peer: The peer of a TACACS+ client (or server) in the context of a > TACACS+ connection, is a TACACS+ server (or client). Together, the > ends of a TACACS+ connection are referred to as peers. > > > 2. Peer authentication: The authentication capabilities of TLS > replace the shared secrets of obfuscation for mutual > authentication. > > > Peers implementing the TACACS+ protocol variant defined in this > document MUST apply mutual authentication and encrypt all data > exchanged between them. … > > Peers MUST NOT use obfuscation with TLS. > > > > While it might not be the case that all occurances should be capitalized, > > it was definitely used more than once. Honestly, I think that I missed > > some edits. I will re-read the entire document on the plane tomorrow. > > > > Over-loading the term was clearly a mistake - mine. Perhaps a better > > solution is to replace it with one lacking a collision. None come to > > mind ATM. > > We agree this would be ideal, especially as we expect this will be an issue > in future documents using the same term. Unfortunately, we also do not have > a good suggestion at this time. > > Please let us know how you would like to update the document.
Thank you Sandy. We appreciate your input. I reviewed the entire document and shared some minor comments among the authors. I do not want to speak for them. I'd ask Douglas to respond once all of the authors have commented. If the other authors choose to change, a possible alternative term we have is Node(s). Mohammed, appreciate your position. No one would like this document to come to an end more than I. I will be only randomly available today through Sunday. Cheers -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
