> On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:45 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Scott, > > Should I unsubmit the original?
yes if the cancelation I just did failed in some way Scott > > 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
