## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The consensus represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy. The authors was responsive enough in tracking and processing all
Comments.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Yes, at least an implementation was disclosed at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/XQ3nytQ-bnXmWcrcqZRMvcbQ3ok/
A plan to implement was also shared here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/UOWVLRZab_02QzIqevRlS6-shrw/
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
Yes. The document leverages BCPs and specifications developed in other WGs.
The document avoids specific/customized behaviors when possible and tried to
maximize factorization of existing behaviors. Also, in order to inherit future
guidelines, the document cites BCP195 instead of RFC 9325.
There were some areas where existing BCPs/RFCs do not provide sufficient
implementation details. The document inspired from other applications (e.g.,
draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk). This is ACKed in the document.
Many iterations were needed to converge on the current level details. Thanks to
the support of experts such as Alan DeKok.
The development of the document revealed the need for global guidance (e.g., by
UTA) rather that each application relying on TLS specifies its own behavior
(e.g., Debugging TACACS+ over TLS). See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/RpstFYI1dVcLnOm9Hb_FjXmkmnE/ for
more details about what seems a plan.
See also below for the external reviews, including from UTA.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Definitely. This is an over-due document. It is well-written and is technically
solid.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
The WG actively sought early in the process to secure reviews from OPS,
transport, and security areas.
The WG also solicited UTA WG, with the WGLC circulated also in UTA:
* https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/KmRofaCQU2OWNp8acXuGjDyoPng/
Also, the WG sought for experts reviews for the TLS part, particularly:
* Valery:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/U3mPq3WlRF48blMmr2uCF80KLiI/ *
Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/lWIGe93NCcmUF7U1XUgQY0aqH5w/
All these reviews were adequately addressed by the authors.
No further reviews are needed.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The document targets Proposed Standard. This is well-documented in both the
front page and Datatracker metadata.
This intended track is justified given the interoperability requirement to
deploy TACACS+TLS clients and servers. The document includes the requirement
normative behavior to ensure such interoperability.
Note that the document updates an Informational document (RFC 8907), though.
However, that is not a problem because the status of RFC 8907 was set
on-purpose as Informational at the time of publication to acknowledge that,
although RFC 8907 specifies a protocol and given its security limitations, the
publication was granted to document the protocol as widely deployed. The deal
with the IESG at the time was that the WG will supplement a PS that will fix
these issues. This document removes those security limitations and Proposed
Standard is adequate.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes.
* Thorsten:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/BKAFwpGB6guT0li2OXEkCw9lqDM/ *
John:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9ttUzCNXz-RdNpOyNZk6djwdiY8/ *
Doug:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/sBuAyZjhQaf3MjgGsnwclG0Hh68/ *
Andrej:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/wvz4aMxEuRJg7VPTtyGO6Nxk8Ck/
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes, as evidenced by the replies to IPR polls.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The following should be fixed:
== Unused Reference: 'TLSCSREC' is defined on line 767, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4020
(Obsoleted by RFC 7120)
I suggest to delete both entries.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
All references are well classified.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
Yes, RFC 8907. This normative dependency is unavoidable given that the document
Leverage the “legacy” TACACS+ and enhances it to be more secure by adding TLS.
Also, the document has a normative dependency on BCP195/RFC9325, which is not
in the downref. However, the registry should be fixed given existing normative
dependency on that RFC as evidenced by
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9325/referencedby/.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No. All normative references are published RFCs.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document will update RFC 8907. This is clearly indicated on the title
page, the abstract, and the introduction.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The document requests IANA to register a well-known port number and a service
Name to TACACS+TLS. The target registry is clearly identified with a link
Included. Also, the required information to perform the registration is
provided.
Note that the authors refers to RFC4020, but that reference can be removed as
no early allocation is requested here, but a permanent assignment.
The WG reached out early in the development process of this document with
The TSV directorate to specifically review this request. The assigned
Reviewer didn’t flag any concern and confirmed that the request is
justified (2024-05-05).
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A. The document does not introduce any new registry.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/