On 11/02/2016 09:51, Alan DeKok 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 I suggest that the document be withdrawn, and re-submitted as an individual 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
That's an Informational RFC that can't require anything of anybody. The same is true of RFC 7221, which is very clear that the process is optional: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.1 No smoking gun there, not even any smoke. That said, I looked back at the WG mailing list for last November and there was explicit discussion of adoption in the thread "New Version Notification for draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01.txt". A WG Last Call is of course required in due course. > > 2. the charter has not been updated to reflect this work. I agree that the WG chairs and AD should be beaten with wet noodles for failing to update the milestones since 2013. > 3. the charter says: > > "All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for > approval with the IESG." I've always read that to mean new work items that fall outside the existing charter, which covers "development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group". TACACS+ clearly lies within that chartered scope. However, it might be wise to delete that sentence from the charter. It's unnecessary to say that rechartering requires approval, because that is a basic IETF procedure. Brian _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
