On 2/12/2016 10:46 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Unless it is absolutely determined that the current work can't doesn't
meet criteria for an IETF standard, I would be opposed to such an
exercise. For one thing, we all have other things to do. For another,
and as or more important, we would be denying the reality of the
situation. I would rather understand now what sort of changes are
being proposed in order for the current work to come up to snuff.
Eliot
Is there anything in this that is incorrect or incomplete? If not, then
can it be resubmitted for informational status to define the protocol as
it currently exists?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grant-tacacs-02
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
