Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01.txt

Hi Eric, Owen,

Thanks for the comments.

The intent at this point is for the "ip" protocol to cover both IPV4 and IPV6, as with current practice.

Documenting the format of addresses is an interesting point. Certainly we would defer detailed representation to the respective RFCs. Up to this point, we intended not to reference specific RFCs so that the format is driven by the context, as Owen suggested. We would of course, review that if recommended by the group.

Many thanks,

Regards,

Doug.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com<mailto:owen@delong.com>>
Date: 16 November 2015 at 19:17
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01.txt
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com<mailto:evyncke@cisco.com>>
Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>

> On Nov 16, 2015, at 04:27 , Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com<mailto:evyncke@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> Important document indeed.
>
> I have a comment on section 7.1 where "ip" as a protocol (the double
> quotes are from the I-D) is mentioned but does it mean IPv4 or IPv6 or
> both?

Surely one would hope that it's meaning is contextual to the time of reading
and that today it would mean {IPv4, IPv6} and that sometime in the future,
it will likely mean {IPv6} and beyond that come to mean {IPv6,...}.

>
> In the same section, may I suggest to describe the syntax of the 'addr'
> field?

Wouldn't the syntax of the addr field be inherently dependent on the
RFC defining the IP version in question in the previous context?

Owen

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--
Thorsten Dahm

Network Engineer
Google Ireland Ltd.
The Gasworks, Barrow Street
Dublin 4,  Ireland

Registered in Dublin, Ireland
Registration Number: 368047