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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 16 May 2017 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 CC2E7129AD5; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4f4-hLKIjtye; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6C8129AC9; Tue, 16 May 2017 09:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.20.121] (CPEf4cc552207f0-CM00fc8dce0fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.230.129.191]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C6EDB7E; Tue, 16 May 2017 16:22:57 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <aecfa188-d7cb-3395-8c41-fb89d8838fc7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:22:56 -0400
Cc: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DEE86F3C-EF38-4346-910B-6CD05D628BC6@deployingradius.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> <fc8a1ff5-db6f-d463-8ff7-77ec03f1f25f@gmail.com> <CC6784CA-0F0D-4ACB-93CF-C398DFB30101@deployingradius.com> <aecfa188-d7cb-3395-8c41-fb89d8838fc7@gmail.com>
To: Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/F4kfSrWMBFM5BlMaHqyuxhCp-PE>
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: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:26:51 -0000

On May 16, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>    I don't see how reviews (which were ignored) can be construed as "no evidence" that the authors were ignoring reviews.
>> 
>>   Which was my point.  If document authors issue new revs irrespective of what the WG suggests, the chairs should replace the authors with ones who work towards WG consensus.
> 
> No-one has seen the -07 revision yet, therefore it seems to be too early to make judgement whether comments and suggestions were or were not addressed. Authors have promised to address the raised comments discussing them on the list and responding to previous reviews.

  My comments (again) were that there was a history of ignoring the reviews.  At the time I made that comment, it was true.  I find it troubling to see a response saying there's "no evidence" of such a problem.

>>   The alternative is to accept a draft as a WG document, and then to allow the authors to do pretty much whatever they want, and then to rubber-stamp the final document as an RFC.
> 
> That is not how the IETF works. I fail to see what else could be commented here.

  I'm saying until I complained, that *was* largely the process being used in this WG.

  Alan DeKok.