On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I think the derivatives work issue here is based on potential IPR claims restricting use of TACACS+ beyond the currently documented (in draft) protocol... if that's the case then we're sunk :( (as operators who need current functionality and want better security properties going forward) If we're not sunk by the IPR torpedo, I would like to see the current work finished as an RFC, yes. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
