Hi Bo, all,
FWIW, a revised version that takes into account your review is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-boucadair-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang-02
Please check and let me know that addresses your comments. Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De :
Hi Bo,
Thanks for the feedback.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Wubo (lana)
> Envoyé : vendredi 7 juin 2024 11:40
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
> opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org
> Cc : Qin Wu
> Objet : RE: I-D Action:
Hi Med,
Thanks for working on the secure tacacs+ YANG.
On the "dual-stack" and "keepalive", here are my comments:
For dual-stack extension: I support this extension. With the practice of Happy
Eyeballs (RFC 8305) you mentioned and our implementation experience, I think
this is useful.
As the
Hi all,
Bo raised a question about keepalives:
https://github.com/boucadair/secure-tacacs-yang/issues/1
As indicated below, we don't have a clear view on whether this is needed or
not. My hope is to record the intended behavior in the base secure tacacs+ spec.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message
