IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans

"Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com> Sat, 13 May 2017 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dcmgash@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44F612EAFA; Sat, 13 May 2017 12:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TAleiGGGtm4h; Sat, 13 May 2017 12:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF38129C59; Sat, 13 May 2017 12:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1239; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494702229; x=1495911829; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=JsWsmmH9Ts2wraAR1eazJJbssrthHA0E6jamtg2h96w=; b=V+6jjZ80SdQmDfih0CJ7nXMNgI/n/haoX2/pjOJR9Ml+h2RZoJCZW+4s aCh6ru08zrgSbdJFeCcQxLay6LlaB+TLwu5X/X+sNxypVBjgY7QqQQoQF qSQaL3ok/VUPY5fYtn0XzljmfKF0b9hVtx9eS23UdzLNeqefprlRKyn+s o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CXAABRWBdZ/5tdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1WBbgeNfKdRgg+GJAKFGT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQZ5EAIBCEYyJQIEDgWKI7AuikQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdi1iKVQEEkGWNJQGTGpFrlEIBHziBCnAVRoZ2dogIgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,336,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="27006370"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 May 2017 19:03:26 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4DJ3PF7021175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 13 May 2017 19:03:26 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 13 May 2017 14:03:25 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 13 May 2017 14:03:25 -0500
From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
CC: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
Thread-Index: AQHSy08ttZSP0sW41keg1j/jrc0SIqHxblMAgADBTACAAE4+gIAAh0UA
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 19:03:25 +0000
Message-ID: <D53D15C9.230A48%dcmgash@cisco.com>
References: <D53BBCC7.22ECC8%dcmgash@cisco.com> <61D9FC7A-6F10-44E6-8400-578C4FEE1988@deployingradius.com> <D53C62F4.22F82E%dcmgash@cisco.com> <E7D62944-46B9-4091-BF16-0AF8CA47626D@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <E7D62944-46B9-4091-BF16-0AF8CA47626D@deployingradius.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.0.161029
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.1.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <2C039534BC03AA44A0DF5A1EB246DAE0@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/CAl5PJlMhEOAmwpefK7dGXqt5Cs>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 19:07:56 -0000

Hi Alan,

So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an individual
response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that together.

On 13/05/2017 12:59, "Alan DeKok" <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:

>On May 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash@cisco.com>
>wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>
>  I told you my preferred method.  Others have agreed that it's the
>preferred method.
>
>  If you're reading messages on this list, that question has already been
>answered.
>
>  You've been given detailed reviews of the draft.  Instead of responding
>to the reviews, you've issued a new revision.  Then, you want the
>reviewers to verify that the new draft addresses their concerns.
>
>  That's not the right approach..
>
>  The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG consensus.
>i.e. to prove to  to the WG that the draft is ready for publication.
>
>  If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the chairs
>replace you with authors who will.
>
>  Alan DeKok.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email