On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> 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 would say "No". I'll repeat my reasoning here. I support publishing "historical TACACS+" as an informational RFC. That makes it clear the protocol was developed outside of the IETF, and not under IETF change control. Despite external people not differentiating between "informational" and "standards track", the IETF process does make that differentiation. If we are to follow the process, we should follow the process. I believe any discussion of TACACS+ MUST remove all discussion of it as an "AAA protocol". If it's an AAA protocol, then the requirements for AAA protocols should apply. If (as many proponents claim), it's not an AAA protocol, then the requirements for AAA protocols shouldn't apply. But the document then MUST NOT describe itself as an AAA protocol. I support publishing the "future TACACS+" as a standards track RFC. But I think this work should be done outside of OPSAWG. New management protocols are not a "small, highly focused projects that don't merit a WG of their own". They require special adoption processes due to the enormous costs they impose on the industry. If, on the other hand, OPSAWG published a standards track document titled "TLS transport profile for legacy network management protocols", that would fall within the charter. But defining a new (to the IETF and the world) network management protocol is entirely outside of the scope of OPSAWG. Or, if (as many people say) the protocol isn't new, then OPSAWG won't be making any changes to TACACS+. It can't both be under IETF change control, and at the same time, 100% historical TACACS+ and nothing more. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
