Dear Alan,
Do the changes below clarify the intent sufficiently? (please find diff below)
The changes are mainly in first section with a few tweaks in later sections.
Many thanks.
9.5 Deployment Best Practices
With respect to the observations about the security issues described above, a
netw
It is also encouraged that the authours could send your slides earlier. So that
people can preview and make comments.
Cheers,
Tianran
Sent from WeLink
发件人： Joe Clarke
收件人： opsawgmailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
主题： [OPSAWG] IETF102: Submit your slides
时间： 2018-07-12
On 7/13/18 4:30 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
> There have been many, many, historical protocols documented in the IETF.
> None that I recall have a statement explicitly blessing existing
> implementations.
>
> The document *should* say that it documents TACACS+ as per existing
> implementatio
On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>> Also, we have *no idea* if the document matches current implementations or
>> deployments. The proponents of TACACS+ have been surprisingly silent on
>> this topic.
>
> i am missig the example of where it does not.
There are probably d
> There are still unaddressed comments. Do we do WG last calls for
> unfinished documents?
>
> Also, we have *no idea* if the document matches current implementations or
> deployments. The proponents of TACACS+ have been surprisingly silent on this
> topic.
>
> So everyone wants the do
On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Joe Clarke wrote:
>
> I am hoping to start a WGLC at the Tuesday meeting, and cary it over to
> the list to make it official.
There are still unaddressed comments. Do we do WG last calls for unfinished
documents?
Also, we have *no idea* if the document matche
>>> I think the current proposals are pretty close, at least from my end.
>>> I think it's just word smithing from now on.
>>
>> good. so it should be fiished by the time the drafts door re-opens on
>> monday?
>
> I am hoping to start a WGLC at the Tuesday meeting, and cary it over to
> the list
On 7/13/18 10:37, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I think the current proposals are pretty close, at least from my end.
>> I think it's just word smithing from now on.
>
> good. so it should be fiished by the time the drafts door re-opens on
> monday?
I am hoping to start a WGLC at the Tuesday meeting, and
> I think the current proposals are pretty close, at least from my end.
> I think it's just word smithing from now on.
good. so it should be fiished by the time the drafts door re-opens on
monday?
randy
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://
On Jul 13, 2018, at 10:29 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i do not think we are gonna 'fix' the security model. this is a widely
> deployed antique we are just trying to document so new victims can
> interoperate.
That has been the goal all along. Along with the goal of documenting
security issues.
Hi, You Lu,
Thank you for your review and comments. pls see my comments inline.
Chongfeng
xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
From: You Lu
Date: 2018-07-13 14:46
To: opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG] Review of li-opsawg-address-pool-management-arch-01
Hi OPSAWG,
I have read li-opsawg-address-pool-management
as one of the many folk who have been using this protocol since the
'90s, i gotta wonder how many angels we can sit on the head of this
bikeshed.
i do not think we are gonna 'fix' the security model. this is a widely
deployed antique we are just trying to document so new victims can
interoperate.
Thanks Alan...
> On 13 Jul 2018, at 14:30, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>> wrote:
>> 9.5 Deployment Best Practices
>>
>> With respect to the observations about the security issues described above,
>> a network administrator MUST NOT rely on the o
On Jul 13, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote:
> 9.5 Deployment Best Practices
>
> With respect to the observations about the security issues described above, a
> network administrator MUST NOT rely on the obfuscation of the TACACS+
> protocol and TACACS+ MUST be deployed over netwo
14 matches
Mail list logo
