Re: [OPSAWG] Procedural issues with the TACACS+ document

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 10, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:ny smoke.
> 
> 
> That said, I looked back at the WG mailing list for last November and there was
> explicit discussion of adoption in the thread "New Version Notification for draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-01.txt".

  I've seen many WGs where lots of people were in favour of a draft.  That doesn't mean the draft is automatically accepted as a WG document.

> I agree that the WG chairs and AD should be beaten with wet noodles for
> failing to update the milestones since 2013.

  I've seen documents refused as WG items, even with unanimity that the documents were appropriate... because they were not part of the charter work items.

  If the process matters, I would suggest that it should apply equally to everyone. 

> I've always read that to mean new work items that fall outside the existing charter,
> which covers "development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
> management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group". TACACS+
> clearly lies within that chartered scope.

  TACACS+ has 100% functionality overlap with RADIUS.

  Sure, it's not extending RADIUS, and doesn't technically fall within the purview of RADEXT.  But I find it rather surprising that OPSAWG is standardizing a protocol which competes directly with an existing, active WG.

  Is this really what we want to do here?  If we standardize TACACS+, we might as well disband RADEXT and DIME, because there's no point in following a standards process when people can do an end-run around it.

  Alan DeKok.