On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > I do not have a dog in this hunt, but I agree with Alan that the "WG standardization process" should not be used to rubber-stamp or simply document a vendor protocol. It should be used where multiple competing documents are evaluated as a starting point for the WG. An AD-sponsored Informational RFC is the correct process if you want to rubber-stamp a document without a consensus-based process. > Alan DeKok. > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
