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

["Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[e-mail]>]

In such a query, it might be worth mentioning that the doc was originally
intended to include TLS support added in order to address significant
elements of the security issues.

The current plan is a two-phased approach whereby the original protocol
would be documented for information first, and then it would be followed
up by a document describing how to increase the security using TLS.




On 18/05/2017 17:57, "t.petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>WG Chairs
>
>A slight change of thought.
>
>This I-D, as Alan has commented and Doug acknowledges, has several
>places where the description of security is more 1997 than 2017.  If we
>turn such parts into a clear, concise specification, we may then find
>that we have wasted our time since the Security Directorate then says
>that no
>way can that appear in an RFC, even an Informational one.
>
>Would it be worth seeking guidance now on what is or is not likely to be
>acceptable to a Security Directorate review?  Not a line by line
>analysis but rather
>higher level guidance as to whether such things as MD4, ASCII login,
>RFC2433 as Best Practice and so on can appear.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tianran Zhou" <[e-mail]>
>To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; "Alan DeKok"
><[e-mail]>; "Ignas Bagdonas" <[e-mail]>
>Cc: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
><[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
><[e-mail]>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:18 AM
>
>Thanks Tom for pointing this out.
>We appreciate any review comment. That really helps to improve the
>document.
>I think it's back on the right track now. Hopefully, the authors can
>respond to more interactions.
>
>
>Regards,
>Tianran
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:01 AM
>> To: Alan DeKok; Ignas Bagdonas
>> Cc: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions,
>Status
>> and Plans
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Alan DeKok" <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM
>>
>> > Hi Alan,
>> >
>> > On 13/05/2017 12:59, Alan DeKok wrote:
>> > > The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG
>> consensus.
>> > > i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for
>publication.
>> > >    If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the
>> chairs replace you with authors who will.
>> >
>> > WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process
>> > described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents. The individual
>> draft
>> > has been accepted as a WG one a while ago with no changes in author
>> > list. If current document authors would like to make any changes to
>> > author/co-author/editor list WG chairs will certainly approve those
>> > changes. Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current
>authors
>> > cannot make progress with the document, WG chairs do not have
>> intentions
>> > of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if
>> evidence
>> > of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the
>expected
>> > level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence. The
>> process
>> > of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been,
>> but
>> > it is not stalled.
>>
>> Ignas
>>
>> I echo part of what Alan says, that for a WG document, the editors
>should
>> reflect the consensus of the WG.  The problem I see is the lack of
>consensus,
>> not with people disagreeing, but with an absence of people agreeing.
>>
>> Alan made a number of comments in October last year, Alexander made
>some
>> in  November but I did not see much follow up from anyone else to
>either
>> set of comments.
>>
>> Trouble is, do the editors incorporate comments that one person has
>made
>> and noone else has agreed or disagreed with?  There is no good answer.
>>
>> In other WGs, I have seen ping-pong, one person comments, comments
>> incorporated, someone else then disagrees, disagreements incorporated
>into
>> a new revision, first person comes back, changes incorporated into a
>newer
>> revision and so on, circling around a lack of consensus.
>> Changing editors, unless it is to someone remote from the subject, is
>unlikely
>> to change things..
>>
>> I did look at Alan's comments, agreed with some, disagreed with
>others,
>> ditto Alexander's, but was disinclined to do more with noone else
>chipping
>> in, especially as several more did chip in in the initial stages of
>should
>> we adopt this, and what status should it be.
>>
>> How you stir people into life is a challenge for WG chairs.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> > Thank you.
>> >
>> > Ignas
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OPSAWG mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>