Hi Andy, On 2/19/16 2:09 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > It is not that clear from the discussions where "documenting a > proprietary protocol" ends > and "WG makes whatever changes and additions they want" begins. > It is not clear how much backward compatibility with existing > implementations is expected. >
I understand your concern. My suggestion is that working group consensus (not any particular individual's or company's point of view) determine what is in a proposed standard. Operational experience with what is running is going to dictate what many people believe should and should not be in in that doc. Whether there is an informational document won't change this. That's a good thing. If someone said we should rewrite TACACS+ to use EBCDIC encoding, for instance, I'm pretty sure you'd see a lot of people complain. If the WG diverges substantially from what is running code, then two documents seem called for. But I don't see that we've crossed that bridge yet. Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
