Chairs, On 2/15/16 9:16 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do > with TACACS+. > > If the answer to the previous question is yes, should the RFC > describing the protocol itself (as opposed to any other document that > might describe appropriate use) be published as a standards track RFC? > I believe the answer to this question should at least initially be “yes”. If the WG comes to determine that the result is so disparate that an informational document describing what is currently deployed is also required, we can do that later. My logic is quite simple: there may not be energy for two documents, and the changes may be simple enough to effect in common implementations that a second document may not be necessary.
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
