On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear OpsAWG: > > This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG should > do with TACACS+ > > Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one or > more RFCs?
I'll say a guarded yes. I have previously explained my preferences for how this work should go forward. I won't repeat them here. I'll also echo t.petch's concerns. There has been no discussion about TACACS+ implementations. i.e. does the draft accurately document the protocol as it exists today? We don't know. It would be good to get feedback from implementors as to whether or not the document is correct on it's technical content. I see that information as critical to have. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
