IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Sat, 13 May 2017 12:00 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 0CE8D129492; Sat, 13 May 2017 05:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 lKJxIwaRXVr2; Sat, 13 May 2017 05:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408131294D8; Sat, 13 May 2017 04:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.120.42] (23-233-24-114.cpe.pppoe.ca [23.233.24.114]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 452D66DC; Sat, 13 May 2017 11:59:13 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <D53C62F4.22F82E%dcmgash@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 07:59:11 -0400
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7D62944-46B9-4091-BF16-0AF8CA47626D@deployingradius.com>
References: <D53BBCC7.22ECC8%dcmgash@cisco.com> <61D9FC7A-6F10-44E6-8400-578C4FEE1988@deployingradius.com> <D53C62F4.22F82E%dcmgash@cisco.com>
To: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Mbzn5UgB8eb_JqO9G-view2oi4k>
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 12:00:59 -0000

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