On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:57 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 09:16, Warren Kumari wrote: > > This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do > with > > TACACS+. > > > > If the answer to the previous question is yes, should the RFC describing > > the protocol itself (as opposed to any other document that might describe > > appropriate use) be published as a standards track RFC? > > If it is only an accurate description of the currently deployed protocol, > I couldn't care less whether it's Proposed Standard or Informational, as > long as the IETF can make derivative works. > > If there are proposed extensions or changes, that should be standards > track. > One thing to keep in mind is that, if the document describing the currently deployed protocol is informational, we may have a tricky time making the extensions be standards track; it would (presumably) require a downref. W > > Brian > > > > > Scott, Tianran and Warren > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
