Ok, let's all please take a step back, and calm down a little. We have a proposed path forward, but are waiting he hear back from our ADs (Benoit is on travel, and it is a vacation for many in the US) to get their input. We'll be the first to admit that we've done a less than stellar job here - there have been many reasons for this (including including travel, bringing on a new chair, Chinese New Year (and other vacations), etc), but we are trying to untangle ourselves - please hang in there for a bit longer...
W On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:36 PM Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
