On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:18 AM Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmg...@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Warren, >> >> >> >> Yes, Thorsten, Andrej and I are actively engaged, and have been joined by >> a new team member (John Heasley). >> >> >> >> There may be one or two minor other additions to enhance security that >> are also coming along for submission to the views of the WG. >> > > Just FYI, there are 459 people on the OpsAWG list; this means we have > almost 500 witnesses to what I'm going to interpret as "We'll have this > done in a few days/weeks" :-) > > Seriously though, thank you. The TACACS YANG document was discussed > recently, and a bunch of ADs said "Oi! We largely approved the original > document on the understanding that you'd fix this. Pay up now..." > > A gentle poke -- we eagerly await something to look at.... W > W > > > > >> >> >> *From: *Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> >> *Date: *Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 16:09 >> *To: *opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, Thorsten Dahm <thorstend...@google.com>, >> Andrej Ota <and...@ota.si>, "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmg...@cisco.com>, >> "car...@ipsec.org" <car...@ipsec.org>, "lol.gr...@gmail.com" < >> lol.gr...@gmail.com> >> *Subject: *TACACS++, please... >> >> >> >> Hi there all, >> >> >> >> Last year we published "RFC8907 - The Terminal Access Controller >> Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) Protocol" >> >> >> >> This was a huge amount of work, and we are hugely grateful to the authors >> (and WG) for all of their hard work.... however, in the spirit of "no good >> deed goes unpunished"... >> >> >> >> When we wrote this, it was with the understanding that we'd first puslish >> how TACACS+ currently works, and then a second document which, AFAIR, would >> basically say "... and now just run this over TLS, K, thanks, done". >> >> >> >> I'm hoping that someone, probably the original RFC8907 authors, would be >> willing to take this on? >> >> I believe that this second document should be much much much easier.... >> >> >> >> So, RFC8907 authors, would you be willing to take this on? Please? >> >> >> >> W >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs. >> After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place. >> -- Michael Padlipsky >> > > > -- > The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the > complexities of his own making. > -- E. W. Dijkstra > -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
