On 2/10/16 12:57 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > And some more notes > > 7. The charter says: > > "The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for > the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and > management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group > and do not justify the formation of a new working group. " > > 8. This document is competes directly with two existing working groups, > RADEXT and DIME, to create a third AAA protocol.
it's pretty hard to argue that we've created something that's been around since 1993 I;m sure we had this dicussion before circa 1996, I don't remember it thankfully. I dare say it is inappropriate for dime or radext to undertake work on tacacs+ under their current charters. it is entirely unclear how this would interfere with the activities of either... > 9. As such, this document should be explicitly outside of the scope of the > OPSAWG. > >> On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: >>> There are a host of procedural problems with how the document was adopted. >>> I suggest that the document be withdrawn, and re-submitted as an individual >>> draft. >> >> To be clear: >> >> 1. the document never had a WG call for adoption as required in Section >> 4.2.1 of RFC 6174 >> >> 2. the charter has not been updated to reflect this work. >> >> 3. the charter says: >> >> "All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for >> approval with the IESG." >> >> 4. I can find no record of this approval taking place. If it had taken >> place, the charter would have been updated. >> >> 5. I had objected to this in person at the OPSAWG meeting in IETF 94. >> However, the web site shows no minutes from that meeting: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/minutes >> >> 6. I believe that this document is an incorrect technical choice as per >> section 6.5.1 of RFC 2016. >> >> As such, I ask the chairs to withdraw the document as a WG document until >> such time as the procedural issues above have been addressed. >> >> Alan DeKok. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
