On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:18 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> 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. > > I think in order for WG consensus to determine decisions wrt/ this document, it would no longer be a Cisco protocol. Cisco would have to give all change control authority to the IETF. Maybe an expert on IETF process (like Scott) can clarify. Andy 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 >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
