Hi Rob, all, Thanks for your reminding. I just posted rev-10 to address the comment from Tom and Joe. Please see : https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-10
Thanks, Bo -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2021年4月7日 22:44 收件人: Wubo (lana) <[email protected]>; tom petch <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 主题: RE: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-09.txt> (YANG Data Model for TACACS+) to Proposed Standard Hi Bo, Please can you post an updated version with the comments from Tom/Joe addressed and then I can get this onto the next Telechat in 2 weeks' time. Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Wubo (lana) > Sent: 23 March 2021 10:56 > To: tom petch <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: > <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-09.txt> > (YANG Data Model for TACACS+) to Proposed Standard > > Hi Tom, Joe, > > Thanks for your helpful comments. I will update the draft as you > suggested. > > Best regards, > Bo > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: tom petch [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2021年3月23日 0:42 > 收件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>; Wubo (lana) > <[email protected]> > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs- > [email protected] > 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-09.txt> > (YANG Data Model for TACACS+) to Proposed Standard > > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> > Sent: 22 March 2021 13:12 > > On 3/22/21 07:15, Wubo (lana) wrote: > > Hi Tom, Joe, > > > > Thanks for your review and comments. The issues will fixed in the > > next > revision. > > > > For 'leaf shared-secret', the following text will be added: > > "It is highly recommended that shared keys are at least 32 > > characters > long and > > sufficiently complex with mixed different character types." > > You're mixing "shared keys" and "shared secrets" again. I think you > should stick with the latter. And I think something like: "with a mix > of different character types" reads a bit better. Perhaps Tom will > have a better way of stating that. > > <tp> > > Not really! > Perhaps > ''... with a mix of different character types i.e. upper case, lower > case, numeric, punctuation" > > That is the sort of terminology I see when being prompted to create a > password for a website. > > Tom Petch > > > Joe > > > > > Best regards, > > Bo > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: tom petch [mailto:[email protected]] > > 发送时间: 2021年3月17日 19:00 > > 收件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> > > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-09.txt> > > (YANG Data Model for TACACS+) to Proposed Standard > > > > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> > > Sent: 16 March 2021 13:04 > > To: tom petch > > > > On 3/16/21 06:13, tom petch wrote: > >> Some editorial quirks > >> > >> YANG > >> revision reference > >> the text value is not quite the same as the title of the I-D; > >> perhaps both are not quite right > > Good catch. These two should be normalized. Perhaps the better > > title > is YANG module for TACACS+. > > <tp> > > or else > > A YANG Module for TACACS+ > > I like the indefinite article there but it is perhaps a matter of > > taste > > > >> leaf shared-secret > >> /shared keys/shared secrets/ > > Yes, agreed. > > > >> should we recommend improving the entropy with mixed case, digits, > punctuation? I note that the example lacks punctuation. A plus sign > might be appropriate! > > Given the weakness, this couldn't hurt. This could be called out in > both Security Considerations as well as in the leaf description. I > like the cheeky notion of a '+' in the example. > > > > <tp> > > Yes, probably both. I have signed up to a lot of services in > > lockdown > and have been exposed to a wide variety of rules about permissible > secrets. One that caught my eye required nine characters while the > one that has stayed with me forbad the use of punctuation! I do think > that for all the very clever things that come out of the IETF's > Security Area, better guidance on the basics, such as entropy, would > do a lot more to improve the Internet! > > > > Tom Petch > > Joe > > > >> Tom Petch > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of The IESG > >> <[email protected]> > >> Sent: 15 March 2021 14:08 > >> To: IETF-Announce > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-09.txt> > >> (YANG Data Model for TACACS+) to Proposed Standard > >> > >> > >> The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management > >> Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: > >> - 'YANG Data Model for TACACS+' > >> <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-09.txt> as Proposed Standard > >> > >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > >> solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive > >> comments to the [email protected] mailing lists by 2021-03-29. > >> Exceptionally, comments may be sent to [email protected] instead. In > >> either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow > >> automated sorting. > >> > >> Abstract > >> > >> > >> This document defines a TACACS+ client YANG module, that > >> augments > the > >> System Management data model, defined in RFC 7317, to allow devices > >> to make use of TACACS+ servers for centralized Authentication, > >> Authorization and Accounting. > >> > >> The YANG module in this document conforms to the Network Management > >> Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The file can be obtained via > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang/ > >> > >> > >> > >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > >> > >> > >> The document contains these normative downward references. > >> See RFC 3967 for additional information: > >> rfc8907: The Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System > >> Plus > >> (TACACS+) Protocol (Informational - Internent Engineering Task > >> Force > >> (IETF)) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSAWG mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSAWG mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
