Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-03

From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
Sent: 07 May 2020 09:08

Hi Lada, Joe,

Thanks for the guidance, please see inline.

Thanks,
Bo

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz]
发送时间: 2020年5月7日 14:38

"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> writes:

>> - Is it correct that the server type may be either one of "authentication", "authorization" or "accounting", or all of them? Is it impossible for a server to be authentication & authorization but not accounting? Such a variant cannot be configured.
>> [Bo] OK, will correct when the final guidance on this issue is received.
>
> Lada replied yesterday to say that the bit string is likely preferred similar to access-operations in ietf-netconf-acm.  I might personally discourage the use of ‘*’ for this given that there are only three types, but that’s just my individual thought.

+1

I think it is better to have all three types explicitly in the value. Perhaps this could also be the default?

Lada
[Bo] Please see if the definition below is correct:
  typedef tcsplus-server-type {
       type bits {
         bit authentication {
           description
             "When set, the server is an authentication server.";
         }
         bit authorization {
           description
             "When set, the server is an authorization server.";
         }
         bit accounting {
           description
             "When set, the server is an accounting server.";
         }
         bit all {
           description
             "When set, the server can be all types of TACACS+ servers.";
         }

       }
       description
         "server-type can be set to authentication/authorization/accounting or any combination of the three types.
          When all three types are supported, either "all" or the three bits setting can be used;
     }

<tp>
I would drop the all.   I know that I suggested it, or an asterisk, but I was thinking that this was a common  case.  Joe suggests that no accounting is the commoner - I do not have sufficient exposure to know - in which case I would not bother with 'all'.  Whether or not to make auth/auth  the default I have no particular view on - as I say, I lack the exposure to be confident about that.

Having 'all' adds complexity, two ways to something, while making a small saving in message size - on balance, not worth it. 

Tom Petch 

>
> Joe
>

--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg