On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> One thing to keep in mind is that, if the document describing the > > >> currently deployed protocol is informational, we may have a tricky > time > > >> making the extensions be standards track; it would (presumably) > require > > >> a downref. > > > > > > it would; it is not logically a huge problem, merely wierd. > > > > > > I doubt very much that a push for better securing of an existing mature > > > protocol is the likely source of controversy there. > > > > what is amusing is that some folk seem to be contemplating that the > > rfc of an old and widely distributed and used protocol should not be > > standard. > > > > > > I think some of us are confused by the use of the term "standard". > > This sometimes refers to a process that is driven by requirements, and > > open to multiple competing solution proposals which address the > requirements. > > Usually the solution is not decided in advance. > > > > Is that the process you have in mind? Doesn't sound like it at all. > > Who decides that the draft represents the One True definition of TACACS+? > > Is that open to debate, decided by WG consensus? > > > decided by WG consensus > sounds like standards track is OK then > Scott > Andy > > > > I am not questioning the value of publishing an RFC, but a standards > track RFC > > requires a proper process. > > > > > > > > randy > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
