Hello, > 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?
That's a trick question; "the protocol itself" definition is what is under debate right now. Is "the protocol itself" TACACS+ as deployed today? Or is it TACACS+ with additions? If the former: No, it should be Informational. If the latter: My answer to Question 2 is now a No. Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 2, avenue de l'Université L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the recipient's key is known to me http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66
0x8A39DC66.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
