On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
My objection is all of that. When people say "We want the draft to be standardized for reason X", I have objections to X. For many versions of X. - there are procedural issues with WG adoption of the document - even if there were no procedural issues, the document violates IETF consensus as described in RFC 3127 - even if there were no procedural issues or violation of IETF consensus, the document does not describe the stated use-case for why it's being adopted - even if none of the above happened, the functionality in the document overlaps 100% with RADIUS, and is therefore technically unnecessary - even if none of the above happened, the protocol could be sufficiently documented via publication as an information document, instead of a standards track document For each reason individually, and for all of those reasons together, this document should not be a standards track document. > 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? Publish it was an informational document, via an individual submission and AD sponsorship. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
