On 2/16/16 12:28 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:57 PM Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto: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.
it would; it is not logically a huge problem, merely wierd. I doubt very much that a push for better securing of an existing mature protocol is the likely source of controversy there. > W > > > Brian > > > > > Scott, Tianran and Warren > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
