On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one or
> more RFCs?
Greetings,
I would not object to an informational RFC documenting a widely used
protocol regardless of whether the IETF controls the standardization
o
Hello,
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
> should do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
> one or more RFCs?
Yes, in multiple RFCs.
The RFC describing the current state has to be Informational; if that's
no
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:14 PM Christopher Morrow <
christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is useful to the community to publish an accurate description
> > of the currently deployed protocol. If that is what the current d
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Yes, it is useful to the community to publish an accurate description
> of the currently deployed protocol. If that is what the current draft
> is, go for it, if and only if it does not carry any restriction on
> derivative works.
I thi
On 16/02/2016 09:14, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
> should do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one
> or more RFCs?
I find it impossible to answer this in a binar
On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG should
> do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one or
> more RFCs?
I'll say a guarded yes.
I h
--- Original Message -
From: "Warren Kumari"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:14 PM
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
> should do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
one
> or more RF
Yes!
--
Tassos
Warren Kumari wrote on 15/2/16 22:14:
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG should
> do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one or
> more RFCs?
>
> Scott, Tianran and Warren
>
>
I'm a little concerned that what's taking place has the
appearance of voting, and I hope that the minority viewpoint
will be weighed on its merit.
That said, I think it's very clearly the case that TACACS+
ought to be published (indeed, probably needs to be published)
given its ubiquity and our i
On 2/15/2016 3:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
should do with TACACS+
Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
one or more RFCs?
Yes
Scott, Tianran and Warren
[0]: The first on
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one
> or more RFCs?
tacacs+ as we know and use it today should be ps today
future work good and should be encouraged.
randy
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.iet
On 2/15/16 9:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
> should do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
> one or more RFCs?
Yes, for reasons previously stated.
Eliot
s
Yes.
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari
Date: Monday, February 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM
To: "opsawg@ietf.org"
Subject: [OPSAWG] Detangling - Q2: Publish TACACS+ as a RFC?
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG should
do with TACAC
On 2/15/16 15:14, Warren Kumari wrote:
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
should do with TACACS+
Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
one or more RFCs?
I like the idea of documenting TACACS+ the way it is today a
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
should do with TACACS+
Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one
or more RFCs?
Scott, Tianran and Warren
[0]: The first one was the IPR one ( "Untangling - Explicit call for IPR on
15 matches
Mail list logo
