as requested: the IETF requires the ability to make directive works and the submission of of the ID for publication did that
the IETF does not require (but likes to have ) “change control” on the underlying technology where the originating company agrees to not further develop a branch of the technology and call it by the same name - we have only officially gotten that in a very few cases (e.g. NFS - see RFC 1790) The IETF did not even get change control in the case of MPLS (a.k.a Tag Switching) but did go right ahead and develop MPLS so in almost all cases the IETF proceeds with the assurance by the authors of an ID that they have the right to contribute the text to the IETF note that any patent issues are completely separate from the copyright and “change control” Scott > On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:18 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > 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? > > Greetings, > > In my opinion, IETF standards track RFCs should be reserved for > protocols for which further development is expected to occur primarily > within the IETF framework. As I understand the situation (feel free to > correct me if I'm wrong), TACACS+ is a vendor maintained standard, > specifically Cisco. Regardless of publication, Cisco intends to retain > control of the standard and its future development. > > > > I think in order for WG consensus to determine decisions wrt/ this document, > it would no longer be a Cisco protocol. Cisco would have to give all change > control > authority to the IETF. Maybe an expert on IETF process (like Scott) can > clarify. > > > Andy > > > If my understanding is correct, TACACS+ should not be presented as an > IETF standards track RFC. > > I would remind folks that it's perfectly OK for a network protocol to > be a standard without it being an _IETF_ standard. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
