In such a query, it might be worth mentioning that the doc was originally intended to include TLS support added in order to address significant elements of the security issues.
The current plan is a two-phased approach whereby the original protocol would be documented for information first, and then it would be followed up by a document describing how to increase the security using TLS. On 18/05/2017 17:57, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: >WG Chairs > >A slight change of thought. > >This I-D, as Alan has commented and Doug acknowledges, has several >places where the description of security is more 1997 than 2017. If we >turn such parts into a clear, concise specification, we may then find >that we have wasted our time since the Security Directorate then says >that no >way can that appear in an RFC, even an Informational one. > >Would it be worth seeking guidance now on what is or is not likely to be >acceptable to a Security Directorate review? Not a line by line >analysis but rather >higher level guidance as to whether such things as MD4, ASCII login, >RFC2433 as Best Practice and so on can appear. > >Tom Petch > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tianran Zhou" <[email protected]> >To: "t.petch" <[email protected]>; "Alan DeKok" ><[email protected]>; "Ignas Bagdonas" <[email protected]> >Cc: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; ><[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; ><[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:18 AM > >Thanks Tom for pointing this out. >We appreciate any review comment. That really helps to improve the >document. >I think it's back on the right track now. Hopefully, the authors can >respond to more interactions. > > >Regards, >Tianran >> -----Original Message----- >> From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:01 AM >> To: Alan DeKok; Ignas Bagdonas >> Cc: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, >Status >> and Plans >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <[email protected]> >> To: "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM >> >> > Hi Alan, >> > >> > On 13/05/2017 12:59, Alan DeKok wrote: >> > > The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG >> consensus. >> > > i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for >publication. >> > > If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the >> chairs replace you with authors who will. >> > >> > WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process >> > described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents. The individual >> draft >> > has been accepted as a WG one a while ago with no changes in author >> > list. If current document authors would like to make any changes to >> > author/co-author/editor list WG chairs will certainly approve those >> > changes. Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current >authors >> > cannot make progress with the document, WG chairs do not have >> intentions >> > of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if >> evidence >> > of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the >expected >> > level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence. The >> process >> > of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been, >> but >> > it is not stalled. >> >> Ignas >> >> I echo part of what Alan says, that for a WG document, the editors >should >> reflect the consensus of the WG. The problem I see is the lack of >consensus, >> not with people disagreeing, but with an absence of people agreeing. >> >> Alan made a number of comments in October last year, Alexander made >some >> in November but I did not see much follow up from anyone else to >either >> set of comments. >> >> Trouble is, do the editors incorporate comments that one person has >made >> and noone else has agreed or disagreed with? There is no good answer. >> >> In other WGs, I have seen ping-pong, one person comments, comments >> incorporated, someone else then disagrees, disagreements incorporated >into >> a new revision, first person comes back, changes incorporated into a >newer >> revision and so on, circling around a lack of consensus. >> Changing editors, unless it is to someone remote from the subject, is >unlikely >> to change things.. >> >> I did look at Alan's comments, agreed with some, disagreed with >others, >> ditto Alexander's, but was disinclined to do more with noone else >chipping >> in, especially as several more did chip in in the initial stages of >should >> we adopt this, and what status should it be. >> >> How you stir people into life is a challenge for WG chairs. >> >> Tom Petch >> >> > Thank you. >> > >> > Ignas >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OPSAWG mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
