Yes
--
Tassos
Warren Kumari wrote on 15/2/16 22:16:
> This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do with
> TACACS+.
>
> 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
Yes!
--
Tassos
Warren Kumari wrote on 15/2/16 22:14:
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG should
> do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one or
> more RFCs?
>
> Scott, Tianran and Warren
>
>
We have strayed away from the work at hand, and I don't see this line of
discussion getting more appropriate.
thanks
joel
On 2/15/16 7:35 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 5:07 AM, heasley wrote:
>>
>> Seems that in the time bikeshedding, this could have already been in WGLC.
>> Outsta
I'm a little concerned that what's taking place has the
appearance of voting, and I hope that the minority viewpoint
will be weighed on its merit.
That said, I think it's very clearly the case that TACACS+
ought to be published (indeed, probably needs to be published)
given its ubiquity and our i
Am I correct in understanding that the goal is to not have to implment
spb on the client device? so this takes the place of an isis
implementation that would do the signaling per 802.1aq.
On 2/15/16 7:09 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I would like to draw the attention of the pa
On 2/15/2016 3:16 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do
with TACACS+.
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)
On 2/15/16 3:16 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
> ps - the session was in the ops area meeting, which is why the minutes are
> not on the opsawg list
Joint meetings have the property of occupying one slot. that may be a
tooling problem but satisfies the proceedings reporting in it's current
form.
> S
On 2/15/2016 3:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
should do with TACACS+
Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
one or more RFCs?
Yes
Scott, Tianran and Warren
[0]: The first on
ps - the session was in the ops area meeting, which is why the minutes are not
on the opsawg list
Scott
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 5:33 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
> Some corrections.
>
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> The topics of the appeal and other messages from Mr. DeKo
> 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?
it is a deployed and widely used protocol. this question is silly. of
course it should
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one
> or more RFCs?
tacacs+ as we know and use it today should be ps today
future work good and should be encouraged.
randy
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.iet
the minutes (such as they are) are included in the proceedings
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-opsarea
Scott
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 5:33 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
> Some corrections.
>
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> The topics of the appeal and
Some corrections.
On Feb 12, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
> The topics of the appeal and other messages from Mr. DeKok included:
> 1/ The adoption of the TACACS+ Internet Draft as a working group item.
My appeal concerned the *process* of adoption as a WG item.
> 2/ The appropri
On 2/15/16 9:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Dear OpsAWG:
>
> This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
> should do with TACACS+
>
> Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
> one or more RFCs?
Yes, for reasons previously stated.
Eliot
s
Yes.
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari
Date: Monday, February 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM
To: "opsawg@ietf.org"
Subject: [OPSAWG] Detangling - Q3: Publish TACACS+ as a standards track
RFC?
This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do with
TACACS+.
If the answer to
Yes.
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari
Date: Monday, February 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM
To: "opsawg@ietf.org"
Subject: [OPSAWG] Detangling - Q2: Publish TACACS+ as a RFC?
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG should
do with TACACS+
Should the
On 2/15/16 15:16, Warren Kumari wrote:
This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do
with TACACS+.
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 publi
On 2/15/16 15:14, Warren Kumari wrote:
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
should do with TACACS+
Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as
one or more RFCs?
I like the idea of documenting TACACS+ the way it is today a
This is the third of 3 messages to determine what the OpsAWG should do with
TACACS+.
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?
Scott, Ti
Dear OpsAWG:
This is the second of three messages [0] to determine what the OpsAWG
should do with TACACS+
Should the ID, as presented, or as revised by the WG, be published as one
or more RFCs?
Scott, Tianran and Warren
[0]: The first one was the IPR one ( "Untangling - Explicit call for IPR on
Dear WG,
Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to see this
much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a bit of
time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up.
We are going to do a series of steps to get as clear a view of the
consensus of th
Ok, let's all please take a step back, and calm down a little.
We have a proposed path forward, but are waiting he hear back from our ADs
(Benoit is on travel, and it is a vacation for many in the US) to get their
input.
We'll be the first to admit that we've done a less than stellar job here -
th
On Feb 15, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> Seems that in the time bikeshedding, this could have already been in
>>> WGLC. Outstanding work!
>> Following process and achieving consensus is not "bike shedding".
>> It's entirely inappropriate to describe it that way.
>
> i thought he was
>> Seems that in the time bikeshedding, this could have already been in
>> WGLC. Outstanding work!
> Following process and achieving consensus is not "bike shedding".
> It's entirely inappropriate to describe it that way.
i thought he was quite polite in not calling it something much stronger.
h
On Feb 15, 2016, at 5:07 AM, heasley wrote:
>
> Seems that in the time bikeshedding, this could have already been in WGLC.
> Outstanding work!
Following process and achieving consensus is not "bike shedding". It's
entirely inappropriate to describe it that way.
Alan DeKok.
Hi,
I would like to draw the attention of the participants in the OPSAWG on an
individual submission that I am co-authoring. The problem we are trying to
solve is the optimization / minimizing of the amount of configuration that an
operator needs to do when new applications require the creation
Seems that in the time bikeshedding, this could have already been in WGLC.
Outstanding work!
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
David Carrel and Lol Grant are both on linkedin.
Lol Grant is listed as retired and may have absolutely no interest in
trying to resolve copyright problems from 20 years ago, but maybe it
would amuse both of them to get back involved. Or maybe not..
On 2/14/2016 6:58 AM, Scott O. Bradner w
28 matches
Mail list logo
