Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS+ information Draft Security Recommendations refactor

Dear OPSAWG, Below is a revised version of the recommendations. I have understood the consensus to be, that we should keep the strength of the recommendations, but explain how these should be applies in the real world with many, potentially very old implementations in place. Consequently,

Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS+ information Draft Security Recommendations refactor

Hi Joe, Thanks for the comments. We will be sending out a new version of the recommendations section today. It actually intends to clarify in the first section how the guidance should be interpreted, which I think should allow our strong recommendations to be kept, as I hope it will answer

[OPSAWG] IETF102: Submit your slides

Presenters for the Ops Area and OPSAWG combined meeting, please submit your slides no later than end of the day Monday, July 16. Send them to opsawg-chairs@. We can handle PowerPoint and PDF (if you can convert to PDF, that is preferred to ensure it will look good when presented). Thanks. Joe

Re: [OPSAWG] [GROW] [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Hi Tim, Robert, Thanks a lot for your comments. Regarding the idea of using BGP-LS for troubleshooting, we have also considered the possible pros and cons. BGP-LS is initially proposed for carrying link state information using BGP, and is currently used for applications like topology