> On 9 Jul 2019, at 08:59, Wubo (lana) <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. > > 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 <zhoutian...@huawei.com <mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>; > Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com <mailto:l...@cisco.com>> > 抄送: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs > <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <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 <l...@cisco.com <mailto:l...@cisco.com>> > 抄送: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs > <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <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 <zhoutian...@huawei.com <mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; OpsAWG Chairs > <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <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 <zhoutian...@huawei.com > <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 > <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 > <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
