Thanks for the update, Douglas. We look forward to rev -04.
Joe
From: Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 16:14
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) ,
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Status of T+ TLS work
Hi Joe,
An update is underway,
Hi Joe,
An update is underway, current phase is to examine RFC 9325, which seems very
relevant, to see what can be delegated to it.
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Date: Monday, 23 October 2023 at 18:04
To: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Status of T+ TLS
Hello, authors. As we prepare for IETF 118, I wanted to get an update from you
on the TACACS+ TLS work. The last revision was in June, and since then there
have been comments from Alan, Med, Marc Huber, and Peter Marrinon. It seems
like a revision is required. What plans do you have for
Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 04:59:33PM +, Joe Clarke (jclarke):
> Thanks for the summary, heas.
>
> I re-read the text, and, yes, you do cover a number of the situations
> (including potential ways to handle clients with TLS going forward). On
> another doc I reviewed as part of the OPS DIR, it
Thanks for the summary, heas.
I re-read the text, and, yes, you do cover a number of the situations
(including potential ways to handle clients with TLS going forward). On
another doc I reviewed as part of the OPS DIR, it was decided that grouping
text about (in that case) forward-looking
Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:14:39PM +, Joe Clarke (jclarke):
> Hello, authors. Ahead of IETF 115, we’d like to get an update on the status
> of this work. Since adoption, on-list traffic has been silent (though there
> has been discussion on the SSH work).
>
> I believe there are still some
Hello, authors. Ahead of IETF 115, we’d like to get an update on the status of
this work. Since adoption, on-list traffic has been silent (though there has
been discussion on the SSH work).
I believe there are still some outstanding edits to make on this work based on
adoption feedback, and
