On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <[email protected]> wrote: > > You have a point - but TACACS is a reality that isn’t going away. Thus > specifying how to use it/interoperate with it seems useful.
Then it should be published as an individual submission, as an informational document. I submit that we should be parsimonious with the IETF "stamp of approval". Publishing a proprietary vendor protocol as an *IETF standard protocol* is a huge problem. Cisco had 18 years to submit the document for consideration by the IETF. They decided not to. That's fine, it's their decision. This isn't publishing extensions to existing documents, where the WG has been disbanded. This isn't publishing documents which are relevant to multiple working groups, but don't really belong in any particular one. This is creating an entirely new standard protocol, which is in direct competition to existing, and active, working groups. Worse, it's a protocol which the vendor refused to document for 18 years. Now that they're getting bit by interoperability issues, they're seeking the IETF stamp of approval. It's a complete end-run around the entire IETF process. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
