On 19/02/2016 13:56, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2016 10:25, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Is Cisco prepared to cede further change control of the core TACACS+
>>> standard to the IETF process?
>>
>> The IETF deals with individual contributors, not companies. As Scott noted,
>> the authors have already given change control to the IETF by submitting a
>> draft with the appropriate boilerplate.
>>
>> Of course, what any company chooses to actually implement is their own
>> business.
>
> With due respect Brian, you're talking past the issue. If Cisco, the
> company, intends to back away from maintaining the core TACACS+
> standard in favor of the IETF's process then I see no problem with
> bringing the protocol into the IETF process. If not, then only sorrow
> will come from the IETF creating a _competing standard with the same
> name_.
Yes, logically, those statements are true. But we have no way to
know what a company's true intentions are or to know whether they
will stick to those intentions, whatever some employees might say.
So I don't think these hypotheticals about possible futures affect
the decision to be taken now, which is, for once, genuinely about
rough consensus and running code.
otoh not many companies would want to knowingly market a product that
has the same name as an IETF standard but does not conform to that
standard.
OK, the bikeshed now has enough different colour samples on it that we
should stop.
Brian
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
