Hi Alan, So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible, and where we can apply then, to the doc.
Would you have a preferred method that we responded? Thanks. On 12/05/2017 20:47, "Alan DeKok" <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: >On May 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmg...@cisco.com> >wrote: >> 1) Regarding the use of uncredited text from Alan DeKok: >> >> It is certainly the case that Alan has spent time actively engaged in >>the >> process of critiquing this document to improve it, and provided numerous >> proposed textual suggestions,. We would be very happy to acknowledge >> Alan¹s contribution to the document by adding wording that is agreeable >>to >> Alan, in the next draft. In fact not having this acknowledgement for >> Alan¹s contribution so far was an oversight, for which we apologise to >> Alan. > > Thank you. > >> However at this time we do not have plans to change the list of authors. > > I will note that document authors serve at the discretion of the WG / >chairs / AD. > >> Alan: if you feel that we have exploited your suggestions too fully, >>such >> that an acknowledgement in the document would be unsatisfactory >> recompense, then we are happy to consider removing all text that you >> identify, that you feel is derived too closely from your work. > > It would generally seem to be better to acknowledge people who have >contributed substantially to the draft, instead of removing and >re-writing their text. > > The point of the draft is to have a documented protocol, not to >artificially limit the set of authors. > >> 2) Definition of Done >> >> We note that there is still comments along the lines that the document >>is >> not ready, in that the protocol is still not adequately described. We >> would like to make sure that the next version does adequately describe >>the >> protocol. >> >> Rather than to chase a cycle of comment/response, we¹d like to see if we >> can determine what the ³Definition of Done² checklist and metrics would >> be, by which we can measure that the content is be acceptable for the WG >> for such a protocol as TACACS+. > > As I've suggested and others have agreed, what people want is a >response to reviews. > >> For example, as a start point for this, I think we can define: > > Since drafts proceed to RFC via WG consensus, I would suggest that not >responding to reviews is a de facto admission that the draft does not >have WG consensus. > >> 1. The packet formats: defining fields and their constraints >> 2. Identification of fields whose values have meaning for protocol flow. >> This will include error and fail fields. The way that these fields >> influence the flow must be documented. >> 3. Identification of the fields which have a common meaning, but are not >> intended to direct protocol flow. >> 4. Identification of fields whose values have meaning in terms of the >> deployment, which would simply be listed. > > All of these topics and more are addressed in my reviews. > >> If there are other aspects of the protocol, whose absence would mean >>that >> the protocol is not fully described, we would welcome input to help us. > > I've given you input, which has largely been ignored. > >> 3) Next Steps: >> >> We have two next steps: >> >> 3.1) We will produce a new revision correcting the issues such as the >> email address of Lol Grant and the above mentioned acknowledgement of >> Alan, and incorporate lessons from 2) above. >> 3.2) We will provide a summary of the changes between the original draft >> spec from 1998 and the new draft. > > i.e. you won't bother to respond to reviews, you want the WG to read >the draft again to see if the comments have been addressed. > > Again, drafts get published based on WG consensus. Ignoring WG >consensus is just bad practice, and unproductive. > > > At this point, I'm done. I oppose any and all publication of this >draft until such time as the authors can demonstrate that they've >addressed concerns raised here. > > I will continue to respond to Q&A about my reviews, but I see no >benefit in reviewing new versions of the draft. > > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
