On 5/13/2017 7:59 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the chairs replace you with authors who will.
That seems unnecessarily rude.
This draft is still about documenting the existing tacacs+ protocol right? Why?
You've been discussing this thing for a year and can't reach a consensus about an existing protocol. I doubt very strongly that a completed document will be useful to anyone. Nobody needs this to implement the existing protocol.
My personal belief is that extending the protocol isn't a good idea anymore. Instead just rewrite it to use HTTPS/TLS transport with JSON/XML encoding. That should cut out about half of the documentation in the draft. The new protocol doesn't have to run on the same port. It could use 443 or whatever the user declares in the connection URI. Vendors could leave their existing tacacs+ client in the code until people don't need it anymore. Servers could be adapted to support both protocols.
The most important thing to me is that something gets created. This should be moving from a thought experiment to a reference implementation so that people can comment on the details.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
