On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:14 PM Christopher Morrow < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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.. > We are still waiting to hear back from that authors on the explicit IPR check ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/uJUQ4HfSohtJVV3SrR9Qcdnpn5k) , but I should point out that the (boilerplate) starts out with: "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79." Due to the network issues in Prague I was not present at the OpsAREA / OpsAWG meeting, but at 2:30 in the meeting audio recording Joel brought up the Note Well, so presumably the authors are aware -- but we'll wait to hear back on the explicit ACK. 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
