Alan, Since you keep repeating yourself, forgive me if I do the same.
On 13/02/2016 02:32, Alan DeKok wrote: > 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. Several days ago I answered this point: >>> I've always read that to mean new work items that fall outside the existing >>> charter, >>> which covers "development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational >>> and >>> management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group". >>> TACACS+ >>> clearly lies within that chartered scope. >>> >>> However, it might be wise to delete that sentence from the charter. It's >>> unnecessary to say that rechartering requires approval, because that is a >>> basic IETF procedure. > >> 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. Milestones are part of the WG charter. >> 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". No, that it's *used* by many operators. However, the real point about putting it on the standards track is that it would move change control of the text to the IETF. That's a valid point to debate. Is there any win in that for the community, as opposed to leaving it entirely in the hands of "large companies"? If this was only about rubber-stamping I would agree with you. Brian _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
