On Feb 15, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Seems that in the time bikeshedding, this could have already been in >>> WGLC. Outstanding work! >> Following process and achieving consensus is not "bike shedding". >> It's entirely inappropriate to describe it that way. > > i thought he was quite polite in not calling it something much stronger.
Feel free to share your feelings. > how many operators do we need to scream in pain that this is something > we do and need standardized in a simple and clear way does it take for > the ietf purportedly ops area wg to actually listen. and folk wonder > why ops walk away from the ietf in disgust? Which, of course, has nothing to do with me. Since IETF 93 in Prague, I have consistently requested that TACACS+ be documented in an informational RFC. > we know you like radius. oddly, we do to, but for a different purpose. Which is a non sequitur. > tacacs+ needs to be simply, clearly, and formally documented. folk are > willing to do the work. this wg is for that purpose. can we please > move along? I've agreed with all of that. So... we both agree that it should be documented. We both agree that people should use TACACS+. I understand that there have been a lot of messages on the topic, but my position isn't that complicated. Despite having a simple and publicly stated position, I've seen enormous pushback (as here) with comments that are, quite frankly, irrelevant to the position I hold. If the best counter-argument to me is a straw man, I have a nice torch handy. It's called "reality". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
