> 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

Reply via email to