Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 10 March 2021 12:05 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@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 07AD03A2250; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:05:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 header.b=dZFcriaI; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=K08yay6X
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 kqoidecf3rxY; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:05:44 -0800 (PST)
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 707673A21A6; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:05:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18544; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1615377944; x=1616587544; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mxeRziAiZV7AfhfxNVJnl+oKj2bjtXGcWHWb8xyyGUE=; b=dZFcriaIvm7JUVe0fvKPrwve1CDk8LotyxXRtQM0mecA8zQiQZiWsGrI sPf72y2QOwmqtQ0PF8vrPjS1Vm/I+H8w8wSlUr/6pyHOYAI2LRun5T5XO M5354aS1wJoGbc+vT1tZq8NhamI2y8EUEB80+vcVEN4pdVk4rv3pRCzv0 Q=;
X-IPAS-Result: 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
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:HDKFyBeekE6WP8aiCT9zGd9qlGMj4e+mNxMJ6pchl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwaQA9fb9vtbhuuQuKflCiQM4peE5XYFdpEEFxoIkt4fkAFoBsmZQVb6I/jnY21ffoxCWVZp8mv9PR1TH8DzNF3Pq2K/7HgZHRCsfQZwL/7+T4jVicn/3uuu+prVNgNPgjf1Yb57IBis6wvLscxDiop5IaF3wRzM8XY=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,237,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="652435087"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 Mar 2021 12:05:40 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-aln-006.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 12AC5Uve003822 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:05:40 GMT
Received: from xfe-aln-005.cisco.com (173.37.135.125) by xbe-aln-006.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:05:36 -0600
Received: from xfe-aln-004.cisco.com (173.37.135.124) by xfe-aln-005.cisco.com (173.37.135.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:05:34 -0600
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xfe-aln-004.cisco.com (173.37.135.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:05:34 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jysbKx8+r1V/m7S+2QvYlgZRtb/8QSuXqKWDFpyJCeUPhXsEdpg0eMqlEnAUd1nrLU7OiBz4UFd2YdsbQzdvjupvkrmv3fQYvSe8ocGe8rdH+SdNWLAV6xlonIxlb1NJ3kCObWJF/B4aVskI3+XxxqJSiWsq5xoCNnKSASw/kaoLl6tzZYFefSTdc+KEKjoG5L+Iu5ae5+/aaGSEy2me4tmARcn0ndyymnYw2j5AQsggaRxodpZe7wnMEVXelIOC+GEBrwkuihy/cDTBhQYj5M7/tL5RQ7cWND0CDgeyVjeVarnvlYdXB4aVax+jaGg5xsOJcnfuv7fwWkJJZEmPAw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mxeRziAiZV7AfhfxNVJnl+oKj2bjtXGcWHWb8xyyGUE=; b=GtzCpy9vc0wrhpw+Fm6pSOz5XLt2XcuySsK3Qr06+GBhtVryad2mH62gl32JuP3PxD8spNVSC9GfsoB+HsQgLly7TJjtb9KbQvYObmONknJ5qJw0aimEGdPBkwQ+HWKgcehVUDOcqyu48IfizfVLGcbd44nrfpEaDrsHV6a2CvakN3SlMRIQNZZm6lNx66OVMrguQNWln4IUGnotepqkkaplteIx9cz4nYcFe8S5akK1EqfG37yWjP2bDotycYjBd0Yy1ALHG5TiotQRl6PaFOM7js3zI2sB8m1YWRGhQntAnXD4zB14TZl+Q7brm+CRmLWCIeRhy4oel042xGXBzA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mxeRziAiZV7AfhfxNVJnl+oKj2bjtXGcWHWb8xyyGUE=; b=K08yay6XcVsApvtt0TY9mhC4Ak0aKxJ2nm5QxjxZ6iSlwNP1vaOz/QKxi7asUgUFR7fU5lLp/TLFtAAUuLqlxKzvzB4lSbOsCejKu/rGh+fiIEdByB45RCsgDWBelkdCljp6tc3xPVQjABtUAE3hMRHStAAcKucvFG8Ul6uIoiM=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3912.19; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:05:33 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::24c4:4c09:f6f0:5510]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::24c4:4c09:f6f0:5510%2]) with mapi id 15.20.3912.027; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:05:33 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07
Thread-Index: AdaOJ+r2g6iry3KkQNSN2UgDw37YXCHd+aiw
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:05:32 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB4366335111AF28DC08ABA4D2B5919@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <b66fd196168d494aa57784e7b97b69cb@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <b66fd196168d494aa57784e7b97b69cb@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [64.103.40.26]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bfb2cbf6-a51c-4d06-8ac6-08d8e3bcce9b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4366:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB4366E1E4DB25C8C9C48A9ED0B5919@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(66946007)(76116006)(316002)(6506007)(55016002)(52536014)(30864003)(2906002)(66446008)(64756008)(478600001)(8676002)(83380400001)(66556008)(26005)(186003)(8936002)(71200400001)(5660300002)(66476007)(9686003)(110136005)(966005)(86362001)(53546011)(33656002)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bfb2cbf6-a51c-4d06-8ac6-08d8e3bcce9b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Mar 2021 12:05:33.1182 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ktJJwt15P0OHN/7Fnv+Gx/9MUhVyB/qnOIDAhODoy5FzqLQp90Zhf+/ENkD1Z4NBgrV87UJTzXqCme9csRgxgg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4366
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.21, xbe-aln-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/XGTksjc1WCFUnPugrn0XB4bRjsw>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:05:47 -0000
Hi Bo, Sorry, this doc slipped off my radar. I've provided comments inline, but I think that it is only the "shared-secret" part that needs to be resolved. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com> > Sent: 19 September 2020 08:47 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang.all@ietf.org > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07 > > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for the reply. Please see inline. > > Best regards, > Bo > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com] > 发送时间: 2020年9月15日 18:53 > 收件人: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com>; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang.all@ietf.org > 主题: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07 > > Hi Bo, > > Thanks for addressing my previous comments. > > Please see inline ... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com> > > Sent: 29 August 2020 09:40 > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; opsawg > > <opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang.all@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07 > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > v-08 is posted, to address most of the your comments in the two AD > > reviews. > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-08 > > > > There are still some comments to confirm with you. > > > > 3. "shared-secret", should that be put under a choice statement? Is > > it likely that alternative methods of authenticating the server are > > likely in future? > > [Bo] This issue has been discussed in WG before, and it was > > recommended that the module be updated when the new TACACS+ protocol > > defined. What's your opinion? > [RW] > > I'm not sure I entirely follow. > > By "be updated when the new TACACS+ protocol defined", do you mean: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-11, or something > else? > > If it is this draft, then this is a normative reference and will be > published shortly. I had presumed that this model covered the client > functionality from draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-11? > > [Bo] Yes, this model is defined to cover the client functionality from > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-11 or the latest version. > "shared-secret" is used to encrypt the TACACS+ packet body, and is the > only body encryption method defined in the TACACS+ protocol. > During WG discussion, a similar issue has been discussed and it was > suggested that in future an augmented model to be defined to reflect > alternative methods, such as TLS encryption. [RW] So, the problem that I see is that the shared-secret leaf is mandatory. I.e., even if an alternative method was specified then a shared-secret would still always need to be specified. I don't know whether that it is a reasonable constraint to put on the model. If there will always be a shared secret then your augmentation approach should be fine. But, if it is plausible or likely that a shared-secret would not always be required then I would be better to have a mandatory choice statement with shared-secret as one of the choices. > > > > > > > 5. Does the tcsplus-server-type indicate what the server is, or how > > the server is used? E.g., could a server have the authentication bit > > set, but then not be used for user authentication? Or should that be > > prevented with a must statement? > > [Bo]Yes, tcsplus-server-type indicates what type the server is. But I > > don't quite understand this comment. > [RW] > > The distinction that I was trying to make is: > > Server 'S', might have the capabilities of an authentication and > accounting server, but Network Device 'D', that is making use of Server > 'S', might only be making use of its authentication capabilities. In this > scenario, do the configuration bits on device 'D' list Server 'S' as > supporting authentication and accounting (since that is what the server > supports) or do they only list Server 'S' capabilities as "authentication" > (since that is what is being used by 'D')? > > If the intended behaviour is the latter, then I think that we should tweak > the descriptions to be clear. > > [Bo] Yes, the intention is the latter. > Perhaps you mean the YANG descriptions of 'tcsplus-server-type' are not > clear enough. Please let us know if this addresses your concerns or if > there is anything else. > > typedef tacacs-plus-server-type { > type bits { > bit authentication { > description > "When set, the server is an authentication server." > -> > "When set, the device use the server for authentication > service."; [RW] Yes, I think that is fine, but I propose perhaps "Indicates that the TACACS server is providing authentication services". The other two comments should be adjusted similarly. > > } > ... > } > description > "tacacs-plus-server-type can be set to > authentication/authorization/accounting > or any combination of the three types. When all three types are > supported, all the three bits are set."; > -> > "When all the three bits are set, the device use all available > services on the server."; [RW] The last sentence probably isn't needed and could just be removed? Regards, Rob > } > > > > > > > 6. Should there be a limit on the length of a server name? > > [Bo]The TACACS+ protocol does not have any restrictions, and I also > > think this model could follow current ietf-system model, since this > > module is the augmentation of the system model and there is no > > restriction on the RADIUS server name in the ietf-system model. > > How do you think? > [RW] > > I agree that being consistent with ietf-system is a good choice. > > I do wonder more generally if this will mean that different vendors will > impose different limits using deviations, which would effectively make > interop harder. But that doesn't need to be solved here/now. > > [Bo]Thanks for the suggestion. > > > > > > > > 7. I dont' know whether this matters, but the must statement doesn't > > seem to be quite complete, in that it would still allow TACACS+ to be > > listed as an authentication mechanims, but only include an accounting > > server in the TACACS+ server list. > > [Bo] Thanks. Agree that the must statement does not prohibit > > accounting or authorization TACACS+ server configuration. > > I updated the must statement with authentication server type validation. > [RW] > > Okay. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > Thanks, > > Bo > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com] > > 发送时间: 2020年8月20日 18:38 > > 收件人: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs- > > yang.all@ietf.org > > 主题: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07 > > > > Ok, my bad. It seems that I had already done an AD review of this > > document :-) > > > > Bo, there may be some additional comments that you would like to > > consider below in your -08 update. > > > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> > > > Sent: 20 August 2020 11:23 > > > To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang.all@ietf.org > > > Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07. Sorry > > > that it has been a little while in coming. > > > > > > Thank you for this document, I believe that it is in good shape. > > > I've given my slightly more significant comments first, followed by > > > some editorial comments. > > > > > > > > > COMMENTS: > > > > > > "Section 3": > > > > > > The "statistics" container under the "server list" is to record > > > session statistics and usage information during user access which > > > include the amount of data a user has sent and/or received during a > > > session. > > > > > > 1. Looking at the module, the statistics only seem to cover the > > > number of messages rather than the amount of data. Possibly delete > > > the part of the sentence from "which include" ... to the end of the > sentence. > > > > > > > > > "Regarding the YANG module": > > > > > > 2. I suggest changing "tacacsplus" to "tacacs-plus" (e.g., in the > > > module title and top level nodes). > > > > > > 3. "shared-secret", should that be put under a choice statement? Is > > > it likely that alternative methods of authenticating the server are > > > likely in future? > > > > > > 4. I'm not sure that the "tacacsplus" feature is required. > > > Supporting the ietf-system-tacacsplus module should be sufficient to > > > indicate that the device supports TACACS+ client configuration. > > > > > > 5. Does the tcsplus-server-type indicate what the server is, or how > > > the server is used? E.g., could a server have the authentication > > > bit set, but then not be used for user authentication? Or should > > > that be prevented with a must statement? > > > > > > 6. Should there be a limit on the length of a server name? > > > > > > 7. I dont' know whether this matters, but the must statement doesn't > > > seem to be quite complete, in that it would still allow TACACS+ to > > > be listed as an authentication mechanims, but only include an > > > accounting server in the > > > TACACS+ server list. > > > > > > > > > "Security section": > > > /system/tacacsplus/server: This list contains the objects used to > > > control the TACACS+ servers used by the device. Unauthorized > > > access to this list could cause a user management failure on the > > > device. > > > > > > 8. I don't know TACACS+, but I would presume that the risk of > > > accessing this list is much greater than just user management failure. > > > If it was possible to modify this configuration to point to a > > > compromised TACACS+ server then would it not be possible to obtain > > > complete control over the device? If, so I think then I think that > > > it would be helpful to make this risk clear. [As a nit, we should > > > probably also use 'data nodes' rather than 'objects'] > > > > > > > > > "References": > > > > > > 9. Please can you ensure that your normative references to all RFCs > > > that define YANG modules that are imported by the YANG modules > > > defined in this document. From a quick scan, it looked like some > > > might be > > missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > EDITORIAL COMMENTS: > > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > 1. that augment -> that augments > > > 2. in the RFC 7317 with TACACS+ client model. -> in RFC 7317 with a > > > TACACS+ client data model. > > > > > > 3. The data model of Terminal Access Controller Access Control > > > System Plus (TACACS+) client allows ...-> The Terminal Access > > > Controller Access Control System Plus (TACACS+) client data model > > > allows ... > > > > > > Introduction: > > > > > > 4. This document defines a YANG module that augment the System > > > Management data model defined in the [RFC7317] with TACACS+ client > > > model. > > > > > > -> > > > > > > This document defines a YANG module that augments the System > > > Management data model defined in [RFC7317] with a TACACS+ client > > > data model. > > > > > > 5. TACACS+ provides Device Administration -> > > > TACACS+ provides device administration > > > > > > 6. TACACS+ provides Device Administration for routers, network access > > > servers and other networked computing devices via one or more > > > centralized servers which is defined in the TACACS+ Protocol. > > > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-tacacs] > > > > > > -> > > > > > > TACACS+ [I-D.ietf-opsawg-tacacs] provides Device Administration for > > > routers, network access servers and other networked computing > devices > > > via one or more centralized servers. > > > > > > 7. o User Authentication Model: Defines a list of usernames and > > > passwords and control the order in which local or RADIUS > > > authentication is used. > > > > > > -> > > > > > > o User Authentication Model: Defines a list of local usernames and > > > passwords. It also controls the order in which local or RADIUS > > > authentication is used. > > > > > > 8. System Management model -> System Management Model? > > > > > > 9. The YANG model can be used -> The YANG module can be used > > > The YANG data model in this document" => The YANG module in this > > > document > > > > > > > > > "3. Design of the Data Model" > > > > > > 10. Recommend changing heading to "Design of the TACAS+ Data Model" > > > > > > 11. client on the device -> client on a device > > > > > > 12. user's name and password -> user's username and password? > > > > > > 13. user and accounting -> user, and accounting > > > > > > 14. is intended to augment -> augments > > > > > > 15. A couple of places "e.g." should be replaced with "e.g.," > > > > > > Appendix A: > > > > > > 16. In the example, possibly delete the "single-connection" leaf > > > since that is a default value. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Rob
- [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-ya… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… tom petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… tom petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacac… Rob Wilton (rwilton)