On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Alan DeKok wrote:
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+.
Clarification, nobody has asked to form a TACACS WG.
Also, just for clarification, your objection is that the proposed document
is standards-track, and you want it to be informational? When reading your
email it seems sometimes that you don't want this to be a OPSAWG document
at all, sometimes that you don't want TACACS documented as an RFC at all,
sometimes that your main objection is that there has been a procedural
error.
I want TACACS to become documented as an RFC, preferably all functionality
currently in wide spread use. In your view, how do we get that done?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
