Just a couple comments 1) As one operator (of many, I am certain) that utilizes TACACS+ for AAA on every network device, I would certainly hate to see some procedural minutiae bog this effort down. 2) This draft is well written and adds a few welcome additional features. 3) Please don¹t let any procedural issues (real or imagined) inhibit the completion of this good and much needed effort.
Cheers! Ed On 2/10/16, 12:57 PM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Alan DeKok" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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. > >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 I suggest that the document be withdrawn, and re-submitted as 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 > >_______________________________________________ >OPSAWG mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
