On 6/28/18 01:49, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote: > Hi Joe, > > We will update on 1) by end of the week.
Thanks. > 2) Was sent previously, any feedback on it welcome. Yes you did! I read through it and had thought I replied at the time. I appreciate the summary effort. Given that this was a look back at changes, trying to thread that into mailing list discussions would be difficult. Some of those discussions were happening before I joined as co-chair. I would ask that people like Alan (that have been very vocal) make sure that any points have been addressed and if specific changes require more thorough explanation. > 3) I will send out initial proposal today to the list. I saw that. I'll read it over. Joe > > Thanks, > > Doug. > > On 27/06/2018, 16:13, "Joe Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/10/18 04:43, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote: > > Dear Opsawg, > > > > A status update on informational T+ Draft: > > > > 1) Current discussion between Andrej and (mainly) Joe Clarke on some > section 9 (Security), ongoing, Andrej/Authors will respond to Joe’s latest > comments shortly. > > 2) Diffs between Version 6 and Version 10 with brief annotations of > each diff sent to Newsgroup > > 3) Authors Recently reviewed section 9 (Security), and reflect that it > includes some redundant and overlapping content in the sections: > > “9.5. TACACS+ Client Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . 39 > > 9.6. TACACS+ Server Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . 39 > > 9.7. TACACS+ Deployment Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 40” > > …consequently, we are planning to propose rationalised single section > to cover Best Practices. We will present a proposal this week for initiating > discussion, the result of which we will look to include in next version. > > Hello, T+ authors. What is the status of this work? It's now been two > weeks since you sent this (and a month between this and the previous > email). > > For this work to progress, we need much more frequent engagement. To > that end, can one of you present the status of the work and your plan to > move towards ratification in Montreal? > > Thanks. > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
