On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Alan DeKok wrote:
I'd still like to know why it's necessary to have the cachet of an IETF standard for a protocol which is vendor-specific.
It is not vendor specific. In the past 15 years I have used TAC+ on Cisco, Juniper, Huawei and others. That's what we used, and if you wanted to provide IP core equipment, that's what you had to support.
Basically, if you're sending packets through an IP core network today, those devices are likely to do AAA using TAC+. Apart from that, these IP core routers use mechanisms that are "all" documented in an IETF RFC.
I just don't understand your objection to also documenting the AAA protocol that is in super widespread use in the industry.
To me, it's like you would be saying that IS-IS shouldn't be in the IETF because it was originally an ISO protocol. It's equally absurd.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
