As a contributor, I think the new text is much clearer and seems both correct and a wise thing [not] to do.
Joe > On Sep 14, 2020, at 16:12, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear OpsAWG, > > During AUTH48 processing of RFC 8907 (draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs) we ran > into something that was clearly an error: > Original: > As this information is not always subject to verification, it is > recommended that this field is in policy evaluation. > > We are planning on replacing it with: > Updated: > As this information is not always subject to verification, it MUST NOT be > used in policy evaluation.: > > > The original clearly makes no sense, butas the correction flips the > meaning from what was written when approved, I wanted to let the WG > know. > > I'm planning on approving the "Updated" on Monday Sept 21st unless I > hear a clear and compelling argument why not... > > W > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
