IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans

"Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com> Sun, 14 May 2017 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dcmgash@cisco.com>
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 D09DA128961; Sun, 14 May 2017 08:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 zjX6_lUuO3XD; Sun, 14 May 2017 08:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C98361279EB; Sun, 14 May 2017 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2792; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494774204; x=1495983804; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=G2LbpXZn98NFKDKCvzeiZFNimpxkyhJL5lGVy8wHVEM=; b=M2JjHY3uXGFUMVFV1vjZ4uII8MQ2G67Qa4RpIzupFk/nfdlJA1mXzGRc KsfL1cd55rY9KCXJPOdHH+Rnugc4TFllqZ7ZXAXiL7wny8qfdfdG9AV2r X4XmNpPOqSb69nbXOgWaptG1YAjotAiOUSyvjBZ3zb9T46MfqqnS77Au3 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DNAACFcBhZ/49dJa1cDgsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNVYoEMB4NkihiRXZV1gg8hC4UuSgIahH8/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBAQEDAQEyOgsQAgEIGAQoAgIlCyUCBAENBYojDpADnVgGgiiKQQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQWKU4RjF4J1gmYFiVWIJowPAZMakWuUQgEfOIEKcBVGhjk9dodugQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,340,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="424149134"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 May 2017 15:03:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (xch-rcd-013.cisco.com [173.37.102.23]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4EF3NC8022203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 14 May 2017 15:03:23 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 14 May 2017 10:03:23 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 14 May 2017 10:03:23 -0500
From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
CC: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
Thread-Index: AQHSy08ttZSP0sW41keg1j/jrc0SIqHxblMAgADBTACAAE4+gIAAh0UAgAEuvwCAAAlUgIAAFzOA
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 15:03:23 +0000
Message-ID: <D53E2F95.231E94%dcmgash@cisco.com>
References: <D53BBCC7.22ECC8%dcmgash@cisco.com> <61D9FC7A-6F10-44E6-8400-578C4FEE1988@deployingradius.com> <D53C62F4.22F82E%dcmgash@cisco.com> <E7D62944-46B9-4091-BF16-0AF8CA47626D@deployingradius.com> <D53D15C9.230A48%dcmgash@cisco.com> <139688FE-6C2D-40D0-89BC-AB7065793320@deployingradius.com> <89732F74-E383-4519-82C3-9E6EE349F58C@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <89732F74-E383-4519-82C3-9E6EE349F58C@ll.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.0.161029
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.1.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <D989078A4494574D9F574145B39D0E95@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Fqb5k0CYzH7bKq5kCRhmSqvXWdA>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 14 May 2017 15:04:38 -0000

Agreed, we’re working on providing that for each of Alan’s comments made
for v5, and after suitable discussion and agreement, can get to next
version.

On 14/05/2017 15:40, "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
wrote:

>The "normal" expected accepted customary way of responding to comments is
>replying to the list with something like:
>
>To address the comment <x>, the new document (page#, section, paragraph)
>says "blah-blah-blah".
>
>Or 
>
>We decided not to make changes requested by comment <x> because of
>blah-blah-blah. 
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Uri
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 14, 2017, at 10:08, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 13, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
>>><dcmgash@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an
>>>individual
>>> response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that
>>>together.
>> 
>>  The point is to explain *why* the review was accepted or rejected.
>>i.e. to have a discussion around the topic.
>> 
>>  From your earlier comment:
>> 
>>>> So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where
>>>>feasible,
>>>> and where we can apply then, to the doc.
>> 
>>  Which items were incorporated?
>> 
>>  Which items were *not* incorporated?  Why were they not incorporated?
>> 
>>  There is no need to respond to each item individually.  Grouping
>>things together is fine.
>> 
>>  But when there are questions, they should be answered.  When comments
>>are rejected, there should be an explanation.
>> 
>>  My larger issue with the review process so far is that the existing
>>implementors haven't reviewed the document.  So we have no idea whether
>>or not it describes the protocol they've implemented, or the choices
>>they've made.
>> 
>>  Alan DeKok.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> OPSAWG@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email