On 2/18/16 7:18 AM, William Herrin wrote: > 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.
Assuming the document is split into to pieces here part of goal as I understand it is address the issue of adding ssl to the existing specification in an inter-operable fashion. > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
