[secdir] Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-18

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

I do not see such a button.  Anyway, I'd want to enter the review for -19, not correct the review for -18.

Russ


> On Apr 3, 2025, at 1:38 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Russ,
>  
> You should have a “correct review” button under “review” (Assignment) at  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-18-secdir-lc-housley-2025-03-08/
>  
> Cheers
> Med
>  
> De : Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Envoyé : jeudi 3 avril 2025 19:28
> À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc : Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash=[e-mail] <mailto:dcmgash=[e-mail]>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; IETF SecDir <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-18
>  
> 
> 
> Joe:
>  
> This resolves my concern.  I've asked the SecDir Secretary how to post an unrequested review.
>  
> Russ
>  
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2025, at 12:49 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Thanks, Russ.  The authors have published -19.  The diff is at https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-19.  If you agree with the modified text can you amend your DIR review to Ready?
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Joe
>  
> From: Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 at 23:02
> To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash=[e-mail] <mailto:dcmgash=[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, IETF SecDir <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-18
> 
> This approach works for me.
>  
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 13, 2025, at 5:33 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash=[e-mail] <mailto:dcmgash=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Just to confirm, there are three authentication methods (Cert, PSK, RPK). Cert MUST be implemented, the other two MAY be implemented, as they become mature.
>  
> We have made two specific changes, which we hope will clarify:
>  
> 1.      We have indicated that the two options (PSK and RPK) are alternatives to Cert based, to avoid the impression that they are augmentations which are intended to work in combination.
> 2.      In the start of the Cert based section, we have clarified that this section covers Cert based only.
>  
> Please let us know if this new version changes clarify this intent.
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.