On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
TACACS+ the *existing* protocol is not under change control of the IETF. That's my reason for suggesting publication of the protocol *as it exists today* via an informational RFC. First, to document it. Second, to make it clear that the protocol being documented was not created under IETF change control. TACACS+ as it exists tomorrow is absolutely well within the scope of the IETF. Any "future TACACS+" can be produced under IETF change control, with whatever label the IETF wants. > 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"? I've tried to make my argument clear. I have *never* suggested leaving the protocol entirely in the hands of large companies. > If this was only about rubber-stamping I would agree with you. I see the current document as conflating the two points I discussed above. * As such, it comes across as "rubber stamping" the historical TACACS+ protocol as an IETF standard, because it's issuing a standards-track document for "historical TACACS+ plus TLS". * the OPSAWG is defining a new (to the world and IETF) standard network administration protocol as work so minor that it doesn't require a charter update, Where more commonly we would have a WG devoted to defining a critically important network administration protocol * It's an AAA protocol, but the AAA requirements shouldn't apply, because it's not really an AAA protocol. * It's a network management protocol for "device administration" or "device management", a use-case which is so vital that the phrases aren't even mentioned in the document. * It's not a new protocol because it's been around for 18 years, but in order to give the IETF change control, we have to add new bits and TLS transport... which makes it a new protocol. The whole thing looks like special pleading to me. As such, I'm requesting a clear separation of topics, and a clear statement of applicability. That the historical protocol be documented separately from the future protocol. That documents clearly state it's *not* a AAA protocol, and *should not* be used in situations where AAA protocols are used today. That it's a network management protocol, and it should be limited to that use-case. The thing which is amazing for me is that there is enormous push-back to my request for consistently applying logic, the IETF process, and IETF consensus. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
