> On Nov 19, 2019, at 22:17, john heasley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding the question, on the second to last page of the opsawg-tacacs-yang > presentation slides, about the must in model ietf-system, which I believe was > whether to add a must for tacacs, remove the must for radius, or do nothing; > that must seems wrong to me. > > I would expect the system to react no differently to missing sever > configuration than to a list of servers that all fail to respond. Some > vendors have done this historically in cli. > > Whether ietf-system should be changed, I do not know it is worth the effort. > If the WG agrees that its existence is wrong, that might be another question > for yang doctors.
Thanks, heas. Apparently, Ebben has already been discussing this with the other docs. I’ve followed up, and I’m trying to get their take on it. Your point is appreciated. I tend to agree that if I have no servers, I would just fall back (if fallback was configured). 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
