On Feb 10, 2016, at 5:09 PM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
That's not my point. My point is that TACACS+ has a 100% overlap in functionality with the RADIUS protocol. It is a vendor-specific protocol, which the vendor refused to standardize. My opinion is that it's because the vendor saw it as advantageous to have a proprietary protocol. Both for customer lock-in, and for complete control. Now that the other people have implemented the protocol, they see it as being beneficial to standardize it. That is a *complete* end-run around the IETF process. Publishing it as an informational draft is a good idea. Publishing it as an IETF standard means that we reject the work done in RADEXT and DIME to standardize AAA protocols. That we should ignore the last 20 years of history of people working on those protocols, in good faith that they would be IETF standards. That we should just publish any document which has sufficient implementations, no matter that there's an existing WG which is doing 100% similar work. > it is entirely unclear how this would interfere with the activities of > either... Standardizing IPX would not interfere with IPv4 standardization. But it would send entirely the wrong message, that a vendor-specific protocol has the IETFs blessing. What we're saying by standardizing TACACS+ is that the IETF process is irrelevant. The RADEXT WG is irrelevant. All vendors need to do is to push proprietary protocols behind the scenes, and then present them to the IETF as a fait accompli. It's really a slap in the face for everyone who followed the IETF process for the last 20 years, and did work in RADIUS, AAA, DIME, and RADEXT. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
