[OPSAWG] Error discovered during AUTH48 processing of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 14 September 2020 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D923A0ED3 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1RbDe88ofSgB for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3673A0CE7 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id r24so803337ljm.3 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=o+UBXtIMJRS5BbnSAsezwJIBQUc0/Z3LnwEYnF36qNg=; b=UcXiQTauDP+BLTvFvsZDS3lEoWUXLzlpZ5BViSUCgJWMHQuqe1Nz4oa3LyxBeGlJus Q87QGXDwMW97jUG9y4dkCYJOHy6oQcpdNXeQm/fBeGqTnDOUyqLL2p0jYOgG8QoT909o UqCsYeN/Gov0aTN2VCG3SVBhsxWxskXp8L4Y8Q7vALCvNOUebFkb/PzcxbQBETymGXlL g+xt7riDeiQ9IP+J515heHp+IRUU/FzgtOrPrjPzmMHalsJPLTP2qpiMwkLyVWNPU5yz 6nYSjCoZpcRIIFRK6AUh82jjN/JxhXHpAhwe9/0JxEVWK1bZIiZ2KmVIbXBX57inLOLL QdeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=o+UBXtIMJRS5BbnSAsezwJIBQUc0/Z3LnwEYnF36qNg=; b=dY8lOyoC/z5zwIwpU42h7dusdhDSgYeXGjO5E3yUiq6pJC+7SFNzZ/js20wlRnu9gS zurfymY0CG0oTBTlZoQVM7jxmyCJDVkMWF/fSIIztGBygIncm/dY6thv9arXXWANQHGf 1SRyTPz4AM4hO6SMZ47AcAahQwZ1o151+/HG+/UJLaZ/AMoUFp0S6QxBKnVQEnt197zH J1Qltod62svYBe8LSZ0GfVyg/9VdxYavZNVXRpt7ilYDvaUZzt8VYgRY41fnu89J2Wne c0R3DSGf3PmcPxA+HVUvbjZqkZOnNLqllTjV1HD/DKUTLbFbaWlSxr0Q8eC22O+bI7Oj zeUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5300DH+3ZjBcikkQAMBWjLOW8p0tEyh/9e9aEBeLTnVcpsM8nJsY q7RyBwG44mAGAQb2mMhDmEFS89dxCpSDA8nuiTfnwIJW1kYIu8MF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz5uqHDBCrMLftzyW32naOhLgnQjGtmlEUBgvBr9OfWKgToy29YtX7zYoDXIF3EWYHjEUL3EGmuBRanYg0b7Ps=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:980f:: with SMTP id a15mr5377070ljj.153.1600114395525; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:12:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+mE2JZFtgdBnKi4tcRL7Z6MQ391vq1fZftP9c9p6XcfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, ops-ads@ietf.org, OpsAWG-Chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/CBxJY5txrdqaZRCCg-43bRkVfxI>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Error discovered during AUTH48 processing of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 20:13:20 -0000

Dear OpsAWG,

During AUTH48 processing of RFC 8907 (draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs) we ran
into something that was clearly an error:
Original:
   As this information is not always subject to verification, it is
   recommended that this field is in policy evaluation.

We are planning on replacing it with:
Updated:
   As this information is not always subject to verification, it MUST NOT be
   used in policy evaluation.:


The original clearly makes no sense, butas  the correction flips the
meaning from what was written when approved, I wanted to let the WG
know.

I'm planning on approving the "Updated" on Monday Sept 21st unless I
hear a clear and compelling argument why not...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf