On 19/02/2016 10:25, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: >> On 2/18/16 7:18 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Assuming the document is split into to pieces here part of goal as I >> understand it is address the issue of adding ssl to the existing >> specification in an inter-operable fashion. > > Hi Joel, > > Is Cisco prepared to cede further change control of the core TACACS+ > standard to the IETF process?
The IETF deals with individual contributors, not companies. As Scott noted, the authors have already given change control to the IETF by submitting a draft with the appropriate boilerplate. Of course, what any company chooses to actually implement is their own business. Brian _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
