On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > what is amusing is that some folk seem to be contemplating that the > rfc of an old and widely distributed and used protocol should not be > standard. > > I think some of us are confused by the use of the term "standard". This sometimes refers to a process that is driven by requirements, and open to multiple competing solution proposals which address the requirements. Usually the solution is not decided in advance.
Is that the process you have in mind? Doesn't sound like it at all. Who decides that the draft represents the One True definition of TACACS+? Is that open to debate, decided by WG consensus? I am not questioning the value of publishing an RFC, but a standards track RFC requires a proper process. > randy > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > 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
