Good question, Tom. As a contributor, I think a bis might make things more understandable given the amount of augmented objects. I’d like to hear from the authors and other T+ TLS 1.3 implementors.
Joe From: tom petch <[email protected]> Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 at 08:53 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: A YANG Model for Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) over TLS 1.3 p.3 Discussion Note: RFC 9105bis or keep the current augment design. Is this a topic that needs resolving prior to adoption? I do not know what the ramifications are. Tom Petch ________________________________________ From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Sent: 22 October 2024 14:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG]CALL FOR ADOPTION: A YANG Model for Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) over TLS 1.3 The IPR poll has concluded (no known IPR has been disclosed), and we would like to start a two week adoption poll for draft-boucadair-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang/>. Please respond on-list with support and especially comments. The adoption call will run until November 5. Thanks. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
