On Feb 11, 2016, at 1:14 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Alan DeKok wrote: > >> My point is that TACACS+ has a 100% overlap in functionality with the RADIUS >> protocol. > > As an operator that has been running TACACS for 15+ years, my answer to that > is: > > "I don't care". > > I want the IETF to publish an RFC documenting TACACS as it's in use > currently. It's in wide use, and I don't see a reason not to let a document > through that documents what's already in use and potentially adds a few more > features.
Please explain why the draft should be a standards track document, instead of informational. And the document does not describe TACACS+ as it is currently in use. As such, it does not meet your criteria. > If someone came and asked for a new WG for TACACS, that would be a different > matter. But that's what's being done here. The OPSAWG is the WG which is working on TACACS+. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
