On Feb 12, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Stefan Winter <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe there should be two (or more) drafts instead:
I support that. > If you can follow my line of thinking to this point, let's take it even > one step further: we are now discussing a larger effort, involving > multiple RFCs, taking an existing technology to a level it wasn't > before. This is usually much rather a job for a working group in its own > right, with a charter detailing which work happens when; not a job for a > one-shot effort in the opsawg. I believe that a new WG would be required here. From the OPSAWG charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/ " It is not within the scope of the OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work ..." From the AAA WG milestones https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/aaa/charter/ Done Submission of evaluation document as an Informational RFC. Done Submission of requirements document as an Informational RFC. i.e. RFC 2989 and RFC 3127. I would argue that TACACS+ (the AAA protocol) is a failed WG item. It was deemed insufficient by the AAA WG in 2001. If the argument is that TACACS+ is *not* an AAA protocol, and is instead a management protocol, then the document (#2 in Stefan's suggestion) should be updated to state that. Further, development of new IETF standard protocols would also seem to be outside of the charter of the OPSAWG: The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the behavior or WGs in the O&M area (e.g., manageability requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that don't merit a WG of their own or belong to WGs that have already concluded (e.g. advancement of documents on the standards track, application statements, extensions of MIB modules). TACACS+ *may* be considered a "small, highly focussed project", but it definitely doesn't meet any of the other criteria. And I would argue that documenting a network administration protocol (new to the IETF) is not a "small, highly focussed project". It's a serious effort which requires more than a review by OPSAWG, which has many other priorities. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
