On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Adding TLS is a substantial divergence, IMHO. There are no TACACS+ servers I'm aware of which implement TLS. Why not document TACACS+ as a historical protocol, and then "TLS transport for legacy network admin protocols"? If the changes are minor, then the TLS document is minor. If the work to add TLS is not minor, then I think that would fall under the rubric of it "diverges substantially from what is running code, then two documents seem called for." I'd like to just pick one path forward, and be done with it. But the reasons for doing things change, depending on who's answering, and what the question is. To me, this indicates that not only we don't have WG consensus on the document(s), but that the people *proposing* the document(s) can't even reach consensus among themselves as to what they're proposing. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
