+1 As an operator using tacacs+ for the role/level-based administration of many thousands devices, i would like to see a standard RFC for tacacs+. If that must be paired with a clear reference to device administration, that's also fine by me.
-- Tassos Edwin Mallette wrote on 11/2/2016 1:34 πμ: > Just a couple commentsŠ > > 1) As one operator (of many, I am certain) that utilizes TACACS+ for AAA > on every network device, I would certainly hate to see some procedural > minutiae bog this effort down. > 2) This draft is well written and adds a few welcome additional features. > 3) Please don¹t let any procedural issues (real or imagined) inhibit the > completion of this good and much needed effort. > > Cheers! > > Ed > > On 2/10/16, 12:57 PM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Alan DeKok" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >> And some more notes >> >> 7. The charter says: >> >> "The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for >> the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and >> management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group >> and do not justify the formation of a new working group. " >> >> 8. This document is competes directly with two existing working groups, >> RADEXT and DIME, to create a third AAA protocol. >> >> 9. As such, this document should be explicitly outside of the scope of >> the OPSAWG. >> >>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> There are a host of procedural problems with how the document was >>>> adopted. I suggest that the document be withdrawn, and re-submitted as >>>> an individual draft. >>> To be clear: >>> >>> 1. the document never had a WG call for adoption as required in Section >>> 4.2.1 of RFC 6174 >>> >>> 2. the charter has not been updated to reflect this work. >>> >>> 3. the charter says: >>> >>> "All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for >>> approval with the IESG." >>> >>> 4. I can find no record of this approval taking place. If it had taken >>> place, the charter would have been updated. >>> >>> 5. I had objected to this in person at the OPSAWG meeting in IETF 94. >>> However, the web site shows no minutes from that meeting: >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/minutes >>> >>> 6. I believe that this document is an incorrect technical choice as per >>> section 6.5.1 of RFC 2016. >>> >>> As such, I ask the chairs to withdraw the document as a WG document >>> until such time as the procedural issues above have been addressed. >>> >>> Alan DeKok. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSAWG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
