As far as I can tell the only point at issue here is two words in the third header line of the draft:
"Intended status: Standards Track" There doesn't seem to be any dispute that TACACS+ is a widely deployed protocol and that this is a competent description of it, and as already observed the WG chairs didn't exceed their authority in the adoption process. Since the WG hasn't yet even been asked (by WGLC) whether the document should be approved, I can't see what appealable decision has been taken, since basically no decision has been taken. Could we perhaps have a rational debate about whether the draft should be on the standards track or not? It's a perfectly valid question to ask. Standardising multiple solutions to similar problems is not unknown in the IETF; in fact it's rather common in both the Routing Area and the Ops and Management Area. But otoh, RFC 1958 (another Informational document) does say: 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements. Regards Brian _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
