---- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Drake" <rdr...@direcpath.com> To: <opsawg@ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 2:52 AM > > On 2/12/2016 10:46 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > > > Unless it is absolutely determined that the current work can't doesn't > > meet criteria for an IETF standard, I would be opposed to such an > > exercise. For one thing, we all have other things to do. For another, > > and as or more important, we would be denying the reality of the > > situation. I would rather understand now what sort of changes are > > being proposed in order for the current work to come up to snuff. > > > > Eliot > > > Is there anything in this that is incorrect or incomplete? If not, then > can it be resubmitted for informational status to define the protocol as > it currently exists? > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grant-tacacs-02
No! Our procedures have moved on a lot since then and the I-D would need substantial editing. This is problematic. Nowadays - Note Well - anything you or I or anyone else says or writes can be used in an I-D without any breach of copyright. This I-D is 1997 - before my time - and I was looking yesterday to try and find out what rules the IETF was operating under then and could not find them. So, who owns the copyright in the text? Who has permission to edit and publish it? I do not know (and have seen this issue take a while to resolve in other circumstances). And then there is the question of IPR; reading RFC1492, which I think would be a Normative Reference in modern parlance, I would expect a manufacturer to be taking an interest in this and submitting an IPR claim. These are surmountable difficulties. The TLS WG decided that it wanted a specification of SSLv3 some 15 years after the event and we now have RFC6101 but it takes time and effort. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
