On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Greetings, In my opinion, IETF standards track RFCs should be reserved for protocols for which further development is expected to occur primarily within the IETF framework. As I understand the situation (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), TACACS+ is a vendor maintained standard, specifically Cisco. Regardless of publication, Cisco intends to retain control of the standard and its future development. If my understanding is correct, TACACS+ should not be presented as an IETF standards track RFC. I would remind folks that it's perfectly OK for a network protocol to be a standard without it being an _IETF_ standard. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
