On Feb 11, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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"
For me, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There isn't much point in talking about more minor issues when there are major issues still unresolved. > There doesn't seem to be any dispute that TACACS+ is a widely deployed > protocol I agree. > and that this is a competent description of it, Sort of. It's a description of the TACACS+ base protocol as a generic AAA protocol. Which *on it's face* has 100% overlap with RADIUS. The defence of TACACS+ is entirely related to use-cases which aren't in the document. Even if we publish this document as a standards track document, the contents of the device management queries and responses can *only* be vendor specific. Each vendor has their own command-line syntax which, while similar, have proprietary differences. So the *use-case* of the protocol remains entirely vendor-specific. So the base protocol would be documented, but the practical application thereof would be 100% vendor proprietary. That's an unusual use-case for an IETF standard protocol. > 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. Does this mean that WG adoption is a meaningless step? That charter updates are meaningless steps? I'm a little surprised to see a public decision by a WG chair be described as "no decision". That's... legalese I didn't expect in the IETF. > 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. I've been asking for reasons why it should be adopted. The answers are largely "it's widely used". Well, so is IPX. IPX has multiple implementations by multiple vendors, and is running in probably 1000 times as many systems as TACACS+. It's even older than TACACS+. It's still in use. Sure, IPX overlaps with IPv4, but heck... it's widely used, so let's make it an IETF standard protocol. If you find those reasons unconvincing, you should find the reasons for TACACS+ adoption unconvincing, too. Alan deKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
