Reviewer: Joseph Touch
Review result: Ready with Issues
Note that I previously performed an INTAREA early review on Jan 12, 2024.
This document sufficiently addresses the issues previously raised, with the
exception below. It introduces no new concerns.
The sole remaining issue is the use of "un
On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 19:00, wrote:
> Hi Tiru,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for the review. Forwarding it to the list, fwiw.
>
>
>
> I trust the authors will follow up. See one comment inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* tirumal reddy
> *Envoyé :* mardi 7 mai 2024 15:17
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Moham
Hi Mohamed, having ingested 9525 (Thank you for pointing it out), we have
updated the TLS Ident section thusly (NB, we moved from SN to subjectAltName as
9525 pointed out its weakness).
New:
3.3. TLS Identification
For the client-side validation of presented server identities,
implement
Hi Tiru,
Many thanks for the review. Forwarding it to the list, fwiw.
I trust the authors will follow up. See one comment inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : tirumal reddy
Envoyé : mardi 7 mai 2024 15:17
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org
Objet : Re: Request to
Hi Joe, all,
AC service model defines the general AC model, covering both Layer2 and Layer3
attributes, and also enhances bearer, profiles and protocols etc..
While RFC 8299 L3SM also defines L3 AC and RFC 8466 L2SM defines L2 AC, I think
a comparison might help to choose the appropriate model
