Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

["Wubo (lana)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank Joe and Eliot for the comments and suggestions, I will specify these two points for discussion in my slides.

Thanks,
Bo

发件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2019年7月9日 23:15
收件人: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
抄送: Wubo (lana) <[e-mail]>; Qin Wu <[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; OpsAWG Chairs <[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02




On Jul 9, 2019, at 05:35, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:




On 9 Jul 2019, at 08:59, Wubo (lana) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Thank Eliot for pointing out these questions. I share a similar view with Qin, and I suggest to make the following changes in the next version:

1. draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs will be changed as a normative reference according to RFC3967.

Several points: please take into account that RFC 8067 updates RFC 3967.  What this means is that you should probably have a brief chat with the chairs and Ignas on this point to see what he wants.  It may also be worth a little bit of discussion time.

Agreed on your points here.  I do think this should be a standards track document, and I think a downref would be acceptable in this case.  But this is worth addressing as an issue for your draft in your slot.




2. For the second point, I think your concern may be whether the TACACS + YANG model is flexible enough to accommodate the TACACS advanced features.

I think the augmentation is exactly what you want to do for this sort of thing.

This was also my thinking.  If/when a T+/TLS draft comes out and additional configuration is required, that could be an augmentation or even a bis to this model.  From a YANG versioning standpoint, we want models to evolve.

Joe