> On Feb 16, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > 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?
decided by WG consensus Scott > > 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
