IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Sun, 14 May 2017 14:07 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 88219126FB3; Sun, 14 May 2017 07:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TDELhBmnxb2T; Sun, 14 May 2017 07:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A768F1242F7; Sun, 14 May 2017 07:06:57 -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 3DE6F66E; Sun, 14 May 2017 14:06:56 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <D53D15C9.230A48%dcmgash@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 10:06:54 -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: <139688FE-6C2D-40D0-89BC-AB7065793320@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> <D53D15C9.230A48%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/RumyiA5LdDIMYARH0SY9Q9RMZr0>
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: Sun, 14 May 2017 14:07:35 -0000

> On May 13, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> So rather than directly updating the doc, we¹re looking for an individual
> response to each item. That is doable, we¹ll start putting that together.

  The point is to explain *why* the review was accepted or rejected.  i.e. to have a discussion around the topic.

  From your earlier comment:

>> So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible,
>> and where we can apply then, to the doc.

  Which items were incorporated?

  Which items were *not* incorporated?  Why were they not incorporated?

  There is no need to respond to each item individually.  Grouping things together is fine.

  But when there are questions, they should be answered.  When comments are rejected, there should be an explanation.

  My larger issue with the review process so far is that the existing implementors haven't reviewed the document.  So we have no idea whether or not it describes the protocol they've implemented, or the choices they've made.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email