On 12/02/2016 09:14, Alan DeKok wrote: > 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?
Yes, in terms of the IETF process rules for approving a document are concerned. The notion of formal WG adoption is useful innovation, but it isn't actually required by the rules. > That charter updates are meaningless steps? Charter updates are formal step, but the OPSAWG charter is already written to encompass work of this kind. As I hinted before, it's unfortunate that the WG milestones haven't been updated recently, but that's true of many WGs. We are collectively sloppy on that. > 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. It's no decision on the disposition of the document. Until the end of a WG last call, the document is completely open for discussion and change by the WG. >> 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". Actually I think you've been asking for reasons why it should standardised, and there are only two words in the draft header that affect that question. I don't really have an opinion on that. > 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. TACACS+ is used by IP operators, so it seems relevant in a way that IPX isn't. But if you want to propose an IPX BOF in the Internet Area, or request a slot in a future INTAREA WG meeting for IPX, you're obviously free to do so. Rgds Brian _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
