Thanks Scott, Should I unsubmit the original?
On 12/06/2015 10:19, "Scott O. Bradner" <[email protected]> wrote: >please resubmit this draft under your name - e.g., > > draft-delaney-opsawg-tacacs > >Only documents that have been formally accepted by a WG to be a WG >document can use the draft-wg_name type of name > > we can have a discussion on the ID after you resubmit under your own >name to see if the WG supports >adopting it and it fits in our charter (if it does not fit in the charter >we word have to discuss revising the >charter with our ADs and with the IESG) > >Scot > >> On Jun 12, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> TACACS+ is a protocol widely deployed, based upon a draft specification >>that Cisco submitted in 1998, but never completed to RFC status. The >>original draft has been tidied and lightly enhanced and resubmitted, >>with the intent to finally get it published as a standard. >> >> The best fit that we could see was for the opsawg. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Regards, >> >> Doug. >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
