On Feb 11, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Robert Drake <[email protected]> wrote: >> One WG should not be able to over-rule the rest of the IETF. > > Does another WG want to take up the reins of fixing TACACS+?
That's not my point. My point is that we have IETF consensus on topics. A WG shouldn't be able to over-ride IETF consensus without having a larger discussion. i.e. Involving the people who established IETF consensus, and explaining why the WG needs to go against it. With reasons. Not "It's popular". > I would argue #1 does require standards track, unless the difference between > "standards track" and "informational" is largely academic. We need to be able > to push vendors on compatibility. I don't know enough about the IETF > processes to know if this is really true, but I don't think there would be 50 > emails about this if it was okay with everyone to change to informational. I think the discussions are because most people don't see much of a difference between standards track and informational. I do. > Is the RADIUS WG going to add support for command authorization? It seems > like if RADIUS wanted this then one vendor refusing to submit a standard > wouldn't be a barrier. Surely anyone could write a standard and propose it > as a draft? It would be well within the scope of RADEXT. The RADEXT WG would (I'm guessing) be OK with standardizing it. But while anyone can write a standard, any standard is pointless unless it's implemented. And the vendors have refused to standardize command authorization in RADIUS. Because they saw it as a competitive advantage to bypass the IETF. Now that they have problems with inter-operability, they're looking for IETF approval. Again, why is there a need to have the document as standards track? RADIUS accounting (RFC 2866) is Informational, for crying out loud. Are we really saying that RADIUS / RADEXT WG with an active history going back to 1996 is *not* going to have a standards track protocol, but TACACS+ gets one, because "it's popular"? That's an amazing interpretation of the IETF consensus, and IETF process. Maybe I'm naive, but it looks a while lot to me like one WG has to follow the rules to get a protocol standardized, and another WG doesn't. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
