Hi Tom, There was a conclusion based on the WG consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/lR3TFRfaR8OldmPFjuVhRTQZHEE
As the first step, we "Produce an informational document which documents the TACACS+ protocol as it stands today (as best as we can)." My suggestion is that we do not cost too much time on the basic TACACS+. On one hand, Alan as from the SECDIR gave this I-D many useful suggestions. On the other hand, we are going to ask for SECDIR early review once the existing comments are solved. Regards, Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 12:57 AM > To: Tianran Zhou; Ignas Bagdonas > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status > and Plans > > WG Chairs > > A slight change of thought. > > This I-D, as Alan has commented and Doug acknowledges, has several places > where the description of security is more 1997 than 2017. If we turn such > parts into a clear, concise specification, we may then find that we have > wasted our time since the Security Directorate then says that no way can > that appear in an RFC, even an Informational one. > > Would it be worth seeking guidance now on what is or is not likely to be > acceptable to a Security Directorate review? Not a line by line analysis > but rather higher level guidance as to whether such things as MD4, ASCII > login, > RFC2433 as Best Practice and so on can appear. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tianran Zhou" <[email protected]> > To: "t.petch" <[email protected]>; "Alan DeKok" > <[email protected]>; "Ignas Bagdonas" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:18 AM > > Thanks Tom for pointing this out. > We appreciate any review comment. That really helps to improve the document. > I think it's back on the right track now. Hopefully, the authors can respond > to more interactions. > > > Regards, > Tianran > > -----Original Message----- > > From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:01 AM > > To: Alan DeKok; Ignas Bagdonas > > Cc: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, > Status > > and Plans > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <[email protected]> > > To: "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM > > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > > > On 13/05/2017 12:59, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > > The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG > > consensus. > > > > i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for > publication. > > > > If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the > > chairs replace you with authors who will. > > > > > > WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process > > > described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents. The individual > > draft > > > has been accepted as a WG one a while ago with no changes in author > > > list. If current document authors would like to make any changes to > > > author/co-author/editor list WG chairs will certainly approve those > > > changes. Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current > authors > > > cannot make progress with the document, WG chairs do not have > > intentions > > > of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if > > evidence > > > of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the > expected > > > level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence. The > > process > > > of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been, > > but > > > it is not stalled. > > > > Ignas > > > > I echo part of what Alan says, that for a WG document, the editors > should > > reflect the consensus of the WG. The problem I see is the lack of > consensus, > > not with people disagreeing, but with an absence of people agreeing. > > > > Alan made a number of comments in October last year, Alexander made > some > > in November but I did not see much follow up from anyone else to > either > > set of comments. > > > > Trouble is, do the editors incorporate comments that one person has > made > > and noone else has agreed or disagreed with? There is no good answer. > > > > In other WGs, I have seen ping-pong, one person comments, comments > > incorporated, someone else then disagrees, disagreements incorporated > into > > a new revision, first person comes back, changes incorporated into a > newer > > revision and so on, circling around a lack of consensus. > > Changing editors, unless it is to someone remote from the subject, is > unlikely > > to change things.. > > > > I did look at Alan's comments, agreed with some, disagreed with > others, > > ditto Alexander's, but was disinclined to do more with noone else > chipping > > in, especially as several more did chip in in the initial stages of > should > > we adopt this, and what status should it be. > > > > How you stir people into life is a challenge for WG chairs. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Ignas > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OPSAWG mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
