The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System
   Plus (TACACS+)'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang/




Technical Summary

   This document defines a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control
   System Plus (TACACS+) client YANG module that augments the System
   Management data model, defined in RFC 7317, to allow devices to make
   use of TACACS+ servers for centralized Authentication, Authorization,
   and Accounting (AAA).  Specifically, this document defines a YANG
   module for TACACS+ over TLS 1.3.

   This document obsoletes RFC 9105.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

[Copied from the Shepherd's report]

While there was no dissent on this work, the comments came from a small subset
of individuals rather than a large set of the WG chiming in.  That said, this
work extends an existing standardized YANG module with support for other work
progressing through the WG.  It is essentially a programmatic representation of
that work, and I would expect to see more feedback on the root work.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

[Copied from the Shepherd's report]

There are currently no known implementations.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Joe Clarke. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

There are two IANA considerations.

- IANA is requested to update the following URI in the "ns" subregistry within 
the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
- IANA is requested to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module 
Names" registry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters" registry group:

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to