Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my previous DISCUSS point (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9zoIrp-e4ghq8EVlvQSkwrhvJfc/ ) ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Section 4 I will let the SEC ADs have the final word of course, but I wonder whe the domain-name leaf is not mandatory ? I.e., the client must check whether the server certificate matches the expected SN of the certificate. Should the YANG module also include which cipher-suite was actually negotiated ? ### Appendix B Thanks for the IPv6 examples ;-) _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
