Dear OpsAWG,
The chairs believe that there is sufficient interest and support to adopt
this document as an OpsAWG document.
Authors, please resubmit as draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-01
Working group:
We would like to see this document progress, and are hoping to WGLC it
soon. Please review this and p
On 11/13/15 13:37, Warren Kumari wrote:
We would really appreciate any feedback on this document. Personally I
think it is really useful, but we need the WG to review and provide
feedback.
Over the years I've heard a number of people kvetch that TACACS+ isn't
documented -- well, now you can, you
Important document indeed.
I have a comment on section 7.1 where "ip" as a protocol (the double
quotes are from the I-D) is mentioned but does it mean IPv4 or IPv6 or
both?
In the same section, may I suggest to describe the syntax of the 'addr'
field?
Hope this helps to increase the quality of t
Okay, I spent some time reviewing this document and yes, it's actually
useful stuff. it should be adopted.
tim
On 11/13/15 1:37 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
We would really appreciate any feedback on this document. Personally I
think it is really useful, but we need the WG to review and provid
> We would really appreciate any feedback on this document. Personally I
> think it is really useful, but we need the WG to review and provide
> feedback.
I have read this draft and support publication.
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
> wrote:
> > Dear Opsawg List,
> >
>
We would really appreciate any feedback on this document. Personally I
think it is really useful, but we need the WG to review and provide
feedback.
Over the years I've heard a number of people kvetch that TACACS+ isn't
documented -- well, now you can, you know, actually do something about
this...
