Hi Med and Authors, Med, thank you for your review. We have updated the document and noted your approval on the AUTH48 page.
Authors, we updated the document as noted below. For the typos, we opted for the NEW text. Authors, please let us know if you prefer NEW2. The current files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887.html AUTH48 diffs (includes earlier updates and the updates Med requested below): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9887-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please let us know if any further updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Nov 12, 2025, at 11:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Sandy, all, > > I would reword 3.1: > > OLD: > Given the prevalence of default port usage in existing TACACS+ client > implementations, this specification assigns well-known TCP port 300 > for TACACS+ over TLS (see Section 7). > > NEW: > > Given the prevalence of default port usage in existing TACACS+ client > implementations, this specification assigns the well-known TCP port number > 300 > ^^^^ ^^^^^^ > for TACACS+ over TLS (see Section 7). > > And fix some typos in 3.2: > > OLD: > TLS TACACS+ connections are generally not long-lived. The connection > will be closed by either a TLS+ TACACS Peer if it encounters an error > or an inactivity timeout. > > NEW: > TLS TACACS+ connections are generally not long-lived. The connection > will be closed by either a TLS TACACS+ peer if it encounters an error > or an inactivity timeout. > > Or simply the following to be consistent with the definition of "peer" in > Section 2: > > NEW2: > TLS TACACS+ connections are generally not long-lived. The connection > will be closed by either a peer if it encounters an error > or an inactivity timeout. > > Other than that, I approve the changes. > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> >> Envoyé : mercredi 12 novembre 2025 20:05 >> À : Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[email protected]> >> Cc : Thorsten Dahm <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <rfc- >> [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; opsawg- >> [email protected]; [email protected]; Joe Clarke (jclarke) >> <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Objet : [AD - Med] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9887 <draft-ietf-opsawg- >> tacacs-tls13-24> for your review >> >> >> Greetings Authors, Med*, >> >> We have updated the document as discussed thus far (including >> using "Certificate Authority”). >> >> *Med, as AD, please review the changes in sections 3.1, 3.2, and >> 5.1.6 and let us know if they are approved. The updates can most >> easily be viewed in one of the AUTH48 diffs: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3 >> b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20% >> 7C0%7C0%7C638985712528875984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hc >> GkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIld >> UIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n9Q8KQSu5ORLQ2vLb4TSpRSrPAcIozDxG >> yMBAr%2BOLoc%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7 >> Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d >> 20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712528904029%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU >> 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1gSvXqkzt3WSkl7hL2qg6i30P9KkJG >> e%2F1AJ%2BCY3ZFBY%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) >> >> >> The fully updated files are available here: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai >> r%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40 >> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712528921743%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VMEH610ARIMOoi >> e1Mew7vnTyeskpp2dndfJQ%2FHTV2mA%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai >> r%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40 >> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712528940954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5ufs5ScgGtl3Ih >> F5QVMy0M9r7mCOOntASyChaBt1ntA%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai >> r%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40 >> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712528958954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RwnA9ZPfdWjkkq >> C3veYeHzsosm0gwyVEo7ERH2HGr0w%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada >> ir%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b4 >> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712528975143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lQpi3%2BDp9nb >> xJqk5Kq9zQBo8v%2BcVFzC%2FrP8kAaVOLpw%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Comprehensive diffs are available here: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b65303 >> 8a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C >> 0%7C638985712528990904%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR >> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf >> Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3geG5DoNpZIGqTwFuUQC7cHQ0TebV5EnBESa7QU >> tFkA%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b65 >> 3038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0 >> %7C0%7C638985712529007450%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGki >> OnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj >> oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=it3%2FZDDhkHnMMdz1I%2FQGn%2FBATOTQhP >> fzKapSnDRMbaA%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) >> >> >> All, please review and let us know if any additional updates are >> needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. >> >> Thank you, >> Sandy Ginoza >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >>> On Nov 9, 2025, at 12:46 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Many thanks for the work to unentangle the document! >>> Please see our initial responses: >>> Authors, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source >> file. >>> >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] May we update this text for readability? >>> >>> Original: >>> While the content of the protocol is highly sensitive, >> TACACS+ lacks >>> effective confidentiality, integrity, and authentication of >> the >>> connection and network traffic between the TACACS+ server and >> client, >>> requiring secure transport to safeguard a deployment. The >> security >>> mechanisms as described in Section 10 of [RFC8907] are >> extremely >>> weak. >>> >>> Suggested: >>> The content of the protocol is highly sensitive and requires >>> secure transport to safeguard a deployment. However, TACACS+ >> lacks >>> effective confidentiality, integrity, and authentication of >> the >>> connection and network traffic between the TACACS+ server and >> client. >>> The security mechanisms as described in Section 10 of >> [RFC8907] are >>> extremely weak. >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Should "for test" be "for testing"? >>> >>> Original: >>> It is a connection without TLS, using the unsecure >>> TACACS+ authentication and obfuscation (or the unobfuscated >> option >>> for test). >>> --> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We recommend simplifying this sentence for >> clarity. >>> Does the connection persist until either a) the TLS TACACS+ peer >>> closes it or b) an inactivity timeout occurs? Please consider >> how the text may be updated. >>> >>> Original: >>> The connection persists until the TLS TACACS+ peer closes it, >> either >>> due to an error, or at the conclusion of the TACACS+ session, >> or, if >>> Single Connection Mode (Section 4.3 of [RFC8907]) has been >>> negotiated, when an inactivity timeout occurs. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The connection persists until the TLS TACACS+ peer closes it >> or >>> until an inactivity timeout occurs when Single Connection >> Mode >>> (Section 4.3 of [RFC8907]) is used. The TLS TACACS+ peer may >> close >>> the connection due to an error or because the TACACS+ session >> has >>> concluded. >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Having reviewed this change, and the relation to next >> paragraph, we’d like to propose the following which replaces the >> Original quoted above, and the next paragraph in the document: >>> TLS TACACS+ connections are generally not long-lived. The >> connection >>> will be closed by either TLS+ TACACS Peer if it encounters an >> error or >>> inactivity timeout. For connections not operating in Single >> Connection Mode (as defined in >>> Section 4.3 of [RFC8907]) the TCP session SHALL be closed upon >>> completion of the associated TACACS+ session. Connections >> operating >>> in Single Connection Mode MAY persist for a longer duration but >> are >>> typically subject to timeout and closure after a brief period of >> inactivity. >>> Consequently, support for transport-layer keepalive mechanisms >> is not >>> required. >>> >>> Why a connection is closed has no bearing on TLS resumption, >> unless >>> closed by a TLS error, in which case it is possible that the >> ticket has been invalidated. >>> </Authors> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] "verification" does not appear in Section 6 of >> RFC 5280. >>> Would it be helpful to the reader to use "validation" for >> consistency >>> with the reference? >>> >>> Original: >>> The implementation of certificate-based mutual authentication >> MUST >>> support certificate path verification as described in Section >> 6 of >>> [RFC5280]. >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Is it correct to refer to the "TLS Resumption >> protocol"? >>> >>> Original: >>> The TLS Resumption protocol, detailed in [RFC8446], can >> minimize the >>> number of round trips required during the handshake process. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> TLS Resumption [RFC8446] can minimize the >>> number of round trips required during the handshake process. >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2 of [RFC5425] is titled "Subject Name >>> Authorization" and doesn't appear to mention any kind of >> obfuscation >>> mechanism. Also, is the obfuscation mechanism described in both >> RFC 8907 >>> and 5425 (or other)? Please review and let us know how/if the >> text may be >>> clarified. >>> >>> Original: >>> [RFC8907] describes the obfuscation mechanism, documented in >> Section >>> 5.2 of [RFC5425]. Such a method is weak. >>> >>> >>> --> >>> <Authors> >>> We propose: >>> The obfuscation mechanism documented in [RFC8907] section 4.5. >> Data >>> Obfuscation is weak </Authors> >>> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "for implementing >>> protocols that use TLS and their deployment." >>> >>> Original: >>> [BCP195] offers substantial guidance for implementing >> protocols that >>> use TLS and their deployment. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> [BCP195] offers substantial guidance for implementing and >> deploying >>> protocols that use TLS. >>> --> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 8) <!-- [rfced] The use of "MUST" twice in this sentence reads >> oddly. >>> Please review. >>> >>> Original: >>> Further, operators MUST ensure that the TLS TACACS+ servers >> covered >>> by a wildcard certificate MUST be impervious to redirection >> of >>> traffic to a different server (for example, due to on-path >> attacks or >>> DNS cache poisoning). >>> >>> Perhaps A: >>> Further, operators MUST ensure that the TLS TACACS+ servers >> covered >>> by a wildcard certificate are impervious to redirection of >>> traffic to a different server (for example, due to on-path >> attacks or >>> DNS cache poisoning). >>> >>> >>> Perhaps B: >>> Further, operators MUST ensure that the TLS TACACS+ servers >> are covered >>> by a wildcard certificate and MUST be impervious to >> redirection of >>> traffic to a different server (for example, due to on-path >> attacks or >>> DNS cache poisoning). >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, Authors have voted for option A</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Does the operator need to consider the impact of >>> supporting both TLS and non-TLS connections? >>> >>> Original: >>> * The operator must consider the impact of mixed TLS and >> Non-TLS on >>> security, as mentioned above. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> * The operator must consider the security impact of >> supporting both TLS >>> and non-TLS connections, as mentioned above. >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!-- [rfced] The description of the service name in the >> first >>> paragraph differs from the what appears in the registration >> template >>> below it and what appears on the IANA site. Is the intent to >> relay >>> that the service name "tacacss" is commonly referred to as >> "TACACS+ >>> over TLS" rather than the description in the template? Or, >> should the descriptions be the same? >>> >>> Original: >>> IANA has allocated a new well-known system TCP/IP port number >> (300) >>> for the service name "tacacss", described as "TACACS+ over >> TLS". The >>> service name "tacacss" follows the common practice of >> appending an >>> "s" to the name given to the Non-TLS well- known port name. >> This >>> allocation is justified in Section 5.3. >>> >>> IANA has added tacacss as a new entry to the "Service name >> and >>> Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" available at >>> >> <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fservice-names-port- >> numbers&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a >> 514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0% >> 7C638985712529021870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRyd >> WUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ% >> 3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IrZUb96oVZKfcsTwK3gf8DLoB8fzZrIWx0PHhq7kN >> Ik%3D&reserved=0>. >>> >>> Description in the template and the IANA registry: >>> TLS Secure Login Host Protocol (TACACSS) See >>> >> <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fservice-names-port- >> numbers%2Fservice-names-port- >> numbers.xhtml%3F%3D%26skey%3D2%26page%3D6&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.b >> oucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20 >> af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529036571%7CUnknown%7 >> CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXa >> W4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kHnvTn2 >> 8iTaatvwupOsJtDvgltFN8ka%2BJcUt4Tulw%2FY%3D&reserved=0>. >>> >>> If the text should be the same, perhaps the paragraphs could be >>> combined as >>> follows: >>> IANA has allocated the following new well-known system in the >>> "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" >> (see >>> >> <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fservice-names-port- >> numbers%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b6530 >> 38a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 >> C0%7C638985712529052794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn >> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy >> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FCXIFhF3drMSNs%2Bhnw6HSXrrn3WV5leFDYbr >> c2qzRGo%3D&reserved=0>). The >>> service name "tacacss" follows the common practice of >> appending an >>> "s" to the name given to the non-TLS well-known port name. >> See the >>> justification for the allocation in Section 5.3. >>> >>> Related: >>> Original in Section 3.1: >>> Given the prevalence of default port usage in existing >> TACACS+ client >>> implementations, this specification assigns a well-known TCP >> port >>> number for TACACS+ over TLS: [TBD] (Section 7), with the >> associated >>> service name "tacacss" Section 7. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Given the prevalence of default port usage in existing >> TACACS+ client >>> implementations, this specification assigns well-known TCP >> port >>> 300 for TACACS+ over TLS (see Section 7). >>> >>> Original in Section 3.1 - We believe this is intentional to >> align with >>> the line prior: >>> * for Non-TLS connection TACACS+: Port number 49. >>> * for TLS connection TACACS+: (TBD). >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!-- [rfced] This document used both "non-TLS" and "Non- >> TLS". We >>> have lowercased instances of "Non-TLS" for consistency and >> because >>> overcapitalization can detract from readability. >>> --> >>> >>> <Authors>Thanks, that makes sense</Authors> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Sandy Ginoza >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>> >>> Cisco Confidential >>> On Oct 24, 2025, at 5:59 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/10/24 >>> >>> RFC Author(s): >>> -------------- >>> >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed >> and >>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an >> RFC. >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> available as listed in the FAQ >> (https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.rfc- >> editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com% >> 7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5 >> d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529068274%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0e >> U1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI >> sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j2KHnAW%2FkiZ2Wc8sqWy9nWYb9CN >> U5zvKycJjUxyf7ds%3D&reserved=0). >>> >>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before >> providing >>> your approval. >>> >>> Planning your review >>> --------------------- >>> >>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> >>> * RFC Editor questions >>> >>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC >> Editor >>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> follows: >>> >>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> >>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> >>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> >>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> >>> * Content >>> >>> Please review the full content of the document, as this >> cannot >>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular >> attention to: >>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> - contact information >>> - references >>> >>> * Copyright notices and legends >>> >>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> (TLP – >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> trustee.ietf.org%2Flicense- >> info&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514 >> bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6 >> 38985712529084885%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUs >> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D% >> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MnGFs9d7lZjGZEw5UmcewtNSuIeydceWEkT2pK8pEw8% >> 3D&reserved=0). >>> >>> * Semantic markup >>> >>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that >> elements of >>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that >> <sourcecode> >>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> >> <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml- >> vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b6530 >> 38a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 >> C0%7C638985712529101497%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn >> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy >> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RYT5U68nmXFjOBk6qSAernb4KPYfsPN4OYMJ2i >> BwztE%3D&reserved=0>. >>> >>> * Formatted output >>> >>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML >> file, is >>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> >>> >>> Submitting changes >>> ------------------ >>> >>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ >> as all >>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The >> parties >>> include: >>> >>> * your coauthors >>> >>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >>> >>> * other document participants, depending on the stream >> (e.g., >>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, >> the >>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> >>> * [email protected], which is a new archival >> mailing list >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active >> discussion >>> list: >>> >>> * More info: >>> >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> mail >>> archive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh- >> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P >>> >> 8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a51 >> 4bef >>> >> 2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6389 >> 8571 >>> >> 2529118570%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiI >> wLjA >>> >> uMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7 >> C%7C >>> >> &sdata=pUVLs80YAAIh0Z%2BcNfCoRwjMBN1srrHHeOKShHCHLPo%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> mail >>> >> archive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7 >> Cmoh >>> >> amed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C9 >> 0c7a >>> >> 20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529134213%7CUnknown >> %7CT >>> >> WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 >> zMiI >>> >> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1jl6vwKxNXyZU >> P67H >>> zToknUXJoVAy41qzwYB6jdpqLI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily >> opt out >>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a >> sensitive matter). >>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message >> that you >>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is >> concluded, >>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC >> list and >>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> >>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> >>> An update to the provided XML file >>> — OR — >>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> >>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> >>> OLD: >>> old text >>> >>> NEW: >>> new text >>> >>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an >> explicit >>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> >>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes >> that >>> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, >> deletion >>> of text, and technical changes. Information about stream >> managers can >>> be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval >> from a stream manager. >>> >>> >>> Approving for publication >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email >>> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use >> ‘REPLY >>> ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your >> approval. >>> >>> >>> Files >>> ----- >>> >>> The files are available here: >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai >> r%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40 >> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529149944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M3WrUV1PcF5dd4 >> cYsXxb84eUjx5f78%2FwLnIOTZceWvQ%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada >> ir%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b4 >> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529347863%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3D4HYnhdn8cAE >> lhP5fIGS7Sm%2FSlwVA8JDugpmznddG8%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai >> r%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40 >> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529364761%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ppce%2BUdysTx0 >> %2FQkJt3BQj46IWs6ppEnvv2cgvvlfbk4%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www. >>> rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai >>> >> r%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40 >> bfbc >>> >> 48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529379848%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 >> d8ey >>> >> JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoi >> TWFp >>> >> bCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8XoLHLWji2zaVQvu%2FkFnDXFI >> H6Fg >>> Eyq8h9puYCc7LtU%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b65303 >> 8a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C >> 0%7C638985712529393617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR >> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf >> Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s%2FVMKvELSiCTPvnLEvStFgI4TqnoJYazvuU2Z >> zV%2BZtw%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed >>> >> .boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a >> 20af >>> >> 34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529411532%7CUnknown%7CT >> WFpb >>> >> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >> sIkF >>> >> OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jUNLnN2gLvKku0gqc >> h6GV >>> im0XIYqmSNsV%2F6ADm5uhbY%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9887- >> xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohame >>> >> d.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7 >> a20a >>> >> f34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529428268%7CUnknown%7C >> TWFp >>> >> bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi >> IsIk >>> >> FOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CGmulrA9NSUfbZOp >> 7b3r >>> b4Z8VxD%2FU%2BdkSQSNgNm44Tk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> >>> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www. >>> rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9887&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40o >>> >> range.com%7Ce3b653038a514bef2b9e08de221eb7d1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc4 >> 8b92 >>> >> 53b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638985712529444453%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ >> FbXB >>> >> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpb >> CIsI >>> >> ldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7nBle%2BJ5TdIRTs9kvIUNyd3MK%2Be >> hzGV >>> 6Ad9g5FdVoX8%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9887 (draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-24) >>> >>> Title : Terminal Access Controller Access-Control >> System Plus over TLS 1.3 (TACACS+ over TLS) >>> Author(s) : T. Dahm, J. Heasley, D. C. Medway Gash, A. >> Ota >>> WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise >>> >>> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gruß, >>> Thorsten Dahm >> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
