On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Douglas, > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote: > > 5) KRB5 and KRB4 need normative references. > > TA> The KRB5 and KRB4 are not specifically used in this document, > > rather, there is one field with an option that the client uses to > > indicate how it authenticated, and these are option. This is not > > verifiable, so it is recomended in the documen tnot to use this field > > for policy.For this reason, it is not really useful to provide a > > normative reference, but it is required for the document to explai > > this. So have added:[AI+TA] > > Please add Informative references for them then. If I decide to implement > TACACS+ and don't know anything about Kerberos, I wouldn't know where to look. > > > All your other changes are either good or I can at least live with them.
Thank you very much, Alexey -- authors, please get a new version posted *soon* - sadly Alexey's term is up in a few days, and we'd dearly like to get this published before then... W > > Best Regards, > Alexey > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
