Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi WG,
Now we conclude the poll and adopt this document as WG draft. There are 
reasonable supports. And it relates to the existing tacacs+ work in this WG.

Authors,
Please republish draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02 as 
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-00 with only the date and file name changed.
Please also address the questions raised during the poll and report on the 
meeting slot.


Cheers,
Tianran and Joe



发件人: OPSAWG [opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Tianran Zhou [zhoutian...@huawei.com]
发送时间: 2019年7月7日 15:58
收件人: opsawg@ietf.org
抄送: OpsAWG Chairs
主题: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


Hi WG,



This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02





This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.

If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..

This poll will run until 22nd July.



Regards,

Tianran & Joe

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Wubo (lana)]

Thank Joe and Eliot for the comments and suggestions, I will specify these two 
points for discussion in my slides.

Thanks,
Bo

发件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:jcla...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2019年7月9日 23:15
收件人: Eliot Lear 
抄送: Wubo (lana) ; Qin Wu ; Tianran 
Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs 

主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02




On Jul 9, 2019, at 05:35, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@cisco.com>> 
wrote:




On 9 Jul 2019, at 08:59, Wubo (lana) 
mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Thank Eliot for pointing out these questions. I share a similar view with Qin, 
and I suggest to make the following changes in the next version:

1. draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs will be changed as a normative reference according 
to RFC3967.

Several points: please take into account that RFC 8067 updates RFC 3967.  What 
this means is that you should probably have a brief chat with the chairs and 
Ignas on this point to see what he wants.  It may also be worth a little bit of 
discussion time.

Agreed on your points here.  I do think this should be a standards track 
document, and I think a downref would be acceptable in this case.  But this is 
worth addressing as an issue for your draft in your slot.




2. For the second point, I think your concern may be whether the TACACS + YANG 
model is flexible enough to accommodate the TACACS advanced features.

I think the augmentation is exactly what you want to do for this sort of thing.

This was also my thinking.  If/when a T+/TLS draft comes out and additional 
configuration is required, that could be an augmentation or even a bis to this 
model.  From a YANG versioning standpoint, we want models to evolve.

Joe
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[john heasley]

> This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
> comments and believe it's ready for further working group discussion.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
> 
> This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.
> 
> If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
> indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
> willing to review and help the draft.

I support adoption.  As with RADIUS, a model is necessary to configure
Tacacs+ servers on Tacacs+ client devices.

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Joe Clarke (jclarke)]

On Jul 9, 2019, at 05:35, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@cisco.com>> 
wrote:



On 9 Jul 2019, at 08:59, Wubo (lana) 
mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Thank Eliot for pointing out these questions. I share a similar view with Qin, 
and I suggest to make the following changes in the next version:

1. draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs will be changed as a normative reference according 
to RFC3967.

Several points: please take into account that RFC 8067 updates RFC 3967.  What 
this means is that you should probably have a brief chat with the chairs and 
Ignas on this point to see what he wants.  It may also be worth a little bit of 
discussion time.

Agreed on your points here.  I do think this should be a standards track 
document, and I think a downref would be acceptable in this case.  But this is 
worth addressing as an issue for your draft in your slot.



2. For the second point, I think your concern may be whether the TACACS + YANG 
model is flexible enough to accommodate the TACACS advanced features.

I think the augmentation is exactly what you want to do for this sort of thing.

This was also my thinking.  If/when a T+/TLS draft comes out and additional 
configuration is required, that could be an augmentation or even a bis to this 
model.  From a YANG versioning standpoint, we want models to evolve.

Joe
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Eliot Lear]

> On 9 Jul 2019, at 08:59, Wubo (lana)  wrote:
> 
> Thank Eliot for pointing out these questions. I share a similar view with 
> Qin, and I suggest to make the following changes in the next version:
> 
> 1. draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs will be changed as a normative reference 
> according to RFC3967.

Several points: please take into account that RFC 8067 updates RFC 3967.  What 
this means is that you should probably have a brief chat with the chairs and 
Ignas on this point to see what he wants.  It may also be worth a little bit of 
discussion time.

> 
> 2. For the second point, I think your concern may be whether the TACACS + 
> YANG model is flexible enough to accommodate the TACACS advanced features.

I think the augmentation is exactly what you want to do for this sort of thing.

> The current TACACS + YANG architecture is designed with per-server 
> configuration and statistics methods. Each server is configured with a TCP 
> port and a shared key.
> These nodes may change to use a "choice" statement. If the TACACS++ extends 
> to use TLS protocol, the transport extensions can be added as new "case" 
> statements.

From what I gather of the model, it merely talks about the state and 
configuration of the T+ connection itself.  I think this mitigates reasonably 
well in favor of a downref since that sort of state is not likely to change too 
much, and if it does, you can augment again.

Eliot

> 
> Thanks,
> Bo
> 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>] 
> 代表 Qin Wu
> 发送时间: 2019年7月9日 11:20
> 收件人: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>; 
> Eliot Lear mailto:l...@cisco.com>>
> 抄送: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs 
> mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
> 
> A few thoughts on Eliot’s two questions:
> 1.   Do we have YANG data model draft developed by IETF published as 
> informational RFC? I haven’t seen one.
> 2.   This model uses system management YANG data model defined in RFC7317 
> as base model and augment it with TACACS+ specifics, and RFC7317 is standard 
> track RFC.
> 3.   Downref is allowed in some circumstance, See RFC3967 section 2, 
> first two bullets.
> 4.   TACACS+ protocol has been moved for publication. Whether or not 
> TACACS++ comes later, TACACS+ will be basis for any advanced features. So 
> timing is perfect.
> 
> -Qin
> 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>] 
> 代表 Tianran Zhou
> 发送时间: 2019年7月9日 10:35
> 收件人: Eliot Lear mailto:l...@cisco.com>>
> 抄送: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs 
> mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
> 
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions. Please see inline.
> 
> Tianran
> 
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com <mailto:l...@cisco.com>]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 8:13 PM
> To: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs 
> mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
> 
> Hi Tianran,
> 
> I have two concerns about this draft.  First is the intended status of this 
> document.  It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an 
> informational reference.  I think the question here is really whether this 
> draft should also be informational.  As a practical matter you really do need 
> to have implemented the other draft for this one to be implemented.  And that 
> means that really it should be a normative reference.  But it would be a 
> downref.  To address this, I suggest just making this document an 
> informational draft, rather than targeting for standards, and make the 
> reference normative.
> 
> [Tianran] Yes, I have the same concern. You provided a good approach. On the 
> other hand, I think RFC3967 described this case.
> “2.  The Need for Downward References
> …
>o  A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
>   and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
>   informational RFCs.”
> 
> In addition, I have another question.  Is there interest or appetite for 
> creating a standardized and more version of T+?  If so, is the timing of a 
> standardized YANG model appropriate?
> 
> [Tianran] I would like to see how the WG would like to approach.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou  <mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG,
> 
> This document was presen

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Wubo (lana)]

Thank Eliot for pointing out these questions. I share a similar view with Qin, 
and I suggest to make the following changes in the next version:

1. draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs will be changed as a normative reference according 
to RFC3967.

2. For the second point, I think your concern may be whether the TACACS + YANG 
model is flexible enough to accommodate the TACACS advanced features.
The current TACACS + YANG architecture is designed with per-server 
configuration and statistics methods. Each server is configured with a TCP port 
and a shared key.
These nodes may change to use a "choice" statement. If the TACACS++ extends to 
use TLS protocol, the transport extensions can be added as new "case" 
statements.

Thanks,
Bo
发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Qin Wu
发送时间: 2019年7月9日 11:20
收件人: Tianran Zhou ; Eliot Lear 
抄送: opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs 
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

A few thoughts on Eliot’s two questions:

1.   Do we have YANG data model draft developed by IETF published as 
informational RFC? I haven’t seen one.

2.   This model uses system management YANG data model defined in RFC7317 
as base model and augment it with TACACS+ specifics, and RFC7317 is standard 
track RFC.

3.   Downref is allowed in some circumstance, See RFC3967 section 2, first 
two bullets.

4.   TACACS+ protocol has been moved for publication. Whether or not 
TACACS++ comes later, TACACS+ will be basis for any advanced features. So 
timing is perfect.

-Qin
发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Tianran Zhou
发送时间: 2019年7月9日 10:35
收件人: Eliot Lear mailto:l...@cisco.com>>
抄送: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs 
mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Hi Eliot,

Thanks for your suggestions. Please see inline.

Tianran

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 8:13 PM
To: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs 
mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Hi Tianran,

I have two concerns about this draft.  First is the intended status of this 
document.  It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an informational 
reference.  I think the question here is really whether this draft should also 
be informational.  As a practical matter you really do need to have implemented 
the other draft for this one to be implemented.  And that means that really it 
should be a normative reference.  But it would be a downref.  To address this, 
I suggest just making this document an informational draft, rather than 
targeting for standards, and make the reference normative.

[Tianran] Yes, I have the same concern. You provided a good approach. On the 
other hand, I think RFC3967 described this case.
“2.  The Need for Downward References
…
   o  A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
  and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
  informational RFCs.”

In addition, I have another question.  Is there interest or appetite for 
creating a standardized and more version of T+?  If so, is the timing of a 
standardized YANG model appropriate?

[Tianran] I would like to see how the WG would like to approach.

Eliot


On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi WG,

This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.
If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..
This poll will run until 22nd July.

Regards,
Tianran & Joe

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Qin Wu]

A few thoughts on Eliot’s two questions:

1.   Do we have YANG data model draft developed by IETF published as 
informational RFC? I haven’t seen one.

2.   This model uses system management YANG data model defined in RFC7317 
as base model and augment it with TACACS+ specifics, and RFC7317 is standard 
track RFC.

3.   Downref is allowed in some circumstance, See RFC3967 section 2, first 
two bullets.

4.   TACACS+ protocol has been moved for publication. Whether or not 
TACACS++ comes later, TACACS+ will be basis for any advanced features. So 
timing is perfect.

-Qin
发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Tianran Zhou
发送时间: 2019年7月9日 10:35
收件人: Eliot Lear 
抄送: opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs 
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Hi Eliot,

Thanks for your suggestions. Please see inline.

Tianran

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 8:13 PM
To: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs 
mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Hi Tianran,

I have two concerns about this draft.  First is the intended status of this 
document.  It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an informational 
reference.  I think the question here is really whether this draft should also 
be informational.  As a practical matter you really do need to have implemented 
the other draft for this one to be implemented.  And that means that really it 
should be a normative reference.  But it would be a downref.  To address this, 
I suggest just making this document an informational draft, rather than 
targeting for standards, and make the reference normative.

[Tianran] Yes, I have the same concern. You provided a good approach. On the 
other hand, I think RFC3967 described this case.
“2.  The Need for Downward References
…
   o  A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
  and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
  informational RFCs.”

In addition, I have another question.  Is there interest or appetite for 
creating a standardized and more version of T+?  If so, is the timing of a 
standardized YANG model appropriate?

[Tianran] I would like to see how the WG would like to approach.

Eliot


On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi WG,

This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.
If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..
This poll will run until 22nd July.

Regards,
Tianran & Joe

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Eliot,

Thanks for your suggestions. Please see inline.

Tianran

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 8:13 PM
To: Tianran Zhou 
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs 
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Hi Tianran,

I have two concerns about this draft.  First is the intended status of this 
document.  It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an informational 
reference.  I think the question here is really whether this draft should also 
be informational.  As a practical matter you really do need to have implemented 
the other draft for this one to be implemented.  And that means that really it 
should be a normative reference.  But it would be a downref.  To address this, 
I suggest just making this document an informational draft, rather than 
targeting for standards, and make the reference normative.

[Tianran] Yes, I have the same concern. You provided a good approach. On the 
other hand, I think RFC3967 described this case.
“2.  The Need for Downward References
…
   o  A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
  and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
  informational RFCs.”

In addition, I have another question.  Is there interest or appetite for 
creating a standardized and more version of T+?  If so, is the timing of a 
standardized YANG model appropriate?

[Tianran] I would like to see how the WG would like to approach.

Eliot



On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi WG,

This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.
If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..
This poll will run until 22nd July.

Regards,
Tianran & Joe

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Zhengguangying (Walker)]

Support as a co-author.

Best Regards!
-walker


From: wangzitao
Sent: 2019年7月9日 10:26
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Support as a co-author.

Best Regards!
-Michael

-

Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 06:55:08 +
From: "Wubo (lana)" mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>>
To: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>, 
"opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>"
 mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
Cc: OpsAWG Chairs mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for
 draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
Message-ID: 
mailto:e26e01670b0f41b5a1c533696773b...@huawei.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"

Support as a co-author.

Thanks,
Bo

???: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] ?? Tianran Zhou
: 2019?7?7? 15:59
???: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
??: OpsAWG Chairs mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>
??: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


Hi WG,



This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it?s ready for further working group discussion.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02





This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.

If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..

This poll will run until 22nd July.



Regards,

Tianran & Joe
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[wangzitao]

Support as a co-author.

Best Regards!
-Michael

-

Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 06:55:08 +
From: "Wubo (lana)" 
To: Tianran Zhou , "opsawg@ietf.org"
 
Cc: OpsAWG Chairs 
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for
     draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"

Support as a co-author.

Thanks,
Bo

???: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] ?? Tianran Zhou
: 2019?7?7? 15:59
???: opsawg@ietf.org
??: OpsAWG Chairs 
??: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


Hi WG,



This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it?s ready for further working group discussion.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02





This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.

If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..

This poll will run until 22nd July.



Regards,

Tianran & Joe
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Eliot Lear]

Hi Tianran,

I have two concerns about this draft.  First is the intended status of this 
document.  It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an informational 
reference.  I think the question here is really whether this draft should also 
be informational.  As a practical matter you really do need to have implemented 
the other draft for this one to be implemented.  And that means that really it 
should be a normative reference.  But it would be a downref.  To address this, 
I suggest just making this document an informational draft, rather than 
targeting for standards, and make the reference normative.

In addition, I have another question.  Is there interest or appetite for 
creating a standardized and more version of T+?  If so, is the timing of a 
standardized YANG model appropriate?

Eliot


> On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou  wrote:
> 
> Hi WG,
> 
> This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
> comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02 
> 
> 
> 
> This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.
> If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
> indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
> willing to review and help the draft.
> If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
> this topic, please say why..
> This poll will run until 22nd July.
> 
> Regards,
> Tianran & Joe
> 
> ___
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg 
> 


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Wubo (lana)]

Support as a co-author.

Thanks,
Bo

发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Tianran Zhou
发送时间: 2019年7月7日 15:59
收件人: opsawg@ietf.org
抄送: OpsAWG Chairs 
主题: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


Hi WG,



This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02





This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.

If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why..

This poll will run until 22nd July.



Regards,

Tianran & Joe

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi WG,



This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the 
comments and believe it's ready for further working group discussion.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02





This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.

If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an 
indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be 
willing to review and help the draft.

If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on 
this topic, please say why.

This poll will run until 22nd July.



Regards,

Tianran & Joe

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg