On Feb 11, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Charter updates are formal step, but the OPSAWG charter is already written > to encompass work of this kind.
Except that the charter says new work will require IESG approval. > As I hinted before, it's unfortunate that > the WG milestones haven't been updated recently, but that's true of many WGs. That's a non sequitur. I never discussed milestones. > We are collectively sloppy on that. Speaking for myself, I don't work for a large company. I don't have a CEO who can apply "behind the scenes" pressure to get things pushed ahead. My main involvement is in a small WG that most people don't care about. As such, my main protection and guidance is the documented IETF process. If we ignore that process, then we're letting large companies do what they want, simply because they're large companies. > 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. Which pretty much misses the point of my argument. There are many protocols used on the wider internet which have many more deployments across more vendors than TACACS+. Those protocols are not documented in RFCs. So... why this one? The only answer so far is that "it's supported by large companies". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
