Re: [OPSAWG] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03

Hey Joe, Thanks for that. Looks like an easy change for us to pick up along the way. Best, Adrian -Original Message- From: Joseph Salowey [mailto:j...@salowey.net] Sent: 17 September 2017 20:32 To: sec...@ietf.org Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;

[OPSAWG] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03

Reviewer: Joseph Salowey Review result: Ready I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 ASCII

Thanks Alan, will correct the nit. I need to correct by previous ambiguity: By: 'without changing too much the draft spec' I should have said: 'without changing too much the protocol that was "defined" draft spec. The original draft spec text has already been largely rewritten by the recent

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 ASCII

On Sep 16, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote: > > We¹re preparing the next revision. Regarding attribute value encoding, > we¹re proposing to add the following, then to assign a type to each > attribute. As always with T+, the issue is getting the right balance