On 16/02/2016 09:14, Warren Kumari 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 find it impossible to answer this in a binary fashion, unfortunately. Yes, it is useful to the community to publish an accurate description of the currently deployed protocol. If that is what the current draft is, go for it, if and only if it does not carry any restriction on derivative works. No, it is not useful to publish a description of the currently deployed protocol mixed with proposed extensions. If that is what the current draft is, split it. Brian > > Scott, Tianran and Warren > > [0]: The first one was the IPR one ( "Untangling - Explicit call for IPR on > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-00") > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
