Tom, On 2/12/16 10:41 AM, t.petch wrote: > Looking at the Informational RFC in the RFC-index, I see > > Cisco Architecture for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks > Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9 > Cisco's Mobile IPv4 Host Configuration Extensions > Cisco Systems UniDirectional Link Detection (UDLD) Protocol > Cisco Systems' Private VLANs: Scalable Security in a Multi-Client > Environment > Cisco Systems' Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs > Cisco Vendor-Specific RADIUS Attributes for the Delivery of Keying > Material > [mmm RADIUS!] > etc etc > > so the question in my mind, is why not do the same now (especially as I > understand that the work was started along these lines in 1997)?
Actually the work started long before THAT, even. I think it dates to 1993 if memory serves. Again, in my mind this is a matter of whether or not the IETF wants change control, and I suspect that matters more to the operators than to anyone at Cisco. I am given to understand that occasionally some operators get touchy about something not being a standard. But speaking plainly, this isn't a science experiment. It isn't something anyone is floating as a suggestion. It's what's being done in the network today, and it is supported across multiple implementations. It is a defacto standard. Unless there's very good reason not to do so[*], let's just call it what it is. And again, I would reiterate: let's also make clear what it's not. A good applicability statement should help with that. Eliot [*] A very good reason would be if it doesn't meet the requirements for specifications that the IETF generally laid out.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
