Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-10.txt
Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Wed, 18 April 2018 08:26 UTC
Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.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 952DF12711E for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 HFLTULGXOGnn for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11EDB126D74 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 95700740089E2 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:26:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:26:48 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:26:38 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>
CC: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, Andrej Ota <aota@google.com>, Thorsten Dahm <thorstendlux@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-10.txt
Thread-Index: AQHT1H7Q2+J+Xp+Us0+DREWATIPIOqQBsJiAgAOnaYD//zRogIABpoPA
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:26:38 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D64809@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <152377192104.19876.15168509162131379489.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3C57BD13-BD53-4048-8975-B0BDD92F2E57@cisco.com> <BFA0D798-621B-4A81-A92F-8B8EFA100E7B@cisco.com> <75CA4B77-5606-4C39-ACB7-F1BE0BD1962A@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <75CA4B77-5606-4C39-ACB7-F1BE0BD1962A@deployingradius.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/WUf_pWECO3M_h-z3_QghtaF4ZMU>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-10.txt
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:26:55 -0000
Hi the Authors, I remember you posted a list of Alan's comments in the mailing list, and mentioned what have been addressed and how, what will be addressed later. I think it's a good start. Why not continue doing this for your new revision. It would be very helpful. Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:07 PM > To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash@cisco.com> > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; Andrej Ota <aota@google.com>; Thorsten Dahm > <thorstendlux@google.com> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-10.txt > > On Apr 17, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Initially (up to around version 5) we included just a very simple security > section admitting that T+ was insecure and that the second document would > address the issue. This was deemed to be insufficient, and instead the WG > collectively determined that more detail should be added to enumerate some > of the issues, you kindly catalogued some of these, providing a proposed text > which we took to be a genuine suggestion for text for the document. > > Which it was. > > The point I've been trying to make for over a year is apparently still > unclear. > > There was no excuse for plagiarizing the text in the first place. Using > it verbatim was fine, so long as attribution was given. > > There was no excuse for ignoring every single email I made to the list asking > about this issue. > > There was no excuse for *continuing* to plagiarize the text for over a year, > across four separate revisions of the document. > > > Subsequently we interpreted your proposal more accurately (as just a > suggestion of the points to cover), and so we made sure that these were covered, > but without verbatim reuse of the text. We hope that we have covered the > thrust of your issues (and others), but without the plagiarism. > > I have no idea. Because at this point, I'm pretty much done reviewing the > document. > > > 2) Reactivity of the Authors. > > > > As far as I know, we have responded to most posts regarding the content > of the document, with point-by-point replies, > > No. > > See the list archives, especially May 2017. There are multiple people > suggesting that you have *not* done this, and that you *should* do this. > > See line-by-line reviews done by me, which were generally ignored. Despite > that, I did *multiple* such reviews, until such time as it became clear that > such reviews were entirely unproductive. > > > but there has been, for various logistic reasons, long delays in submitting > the resulting new documents. Hopefully this has been addresses in last > versions and we will continue with more rapid uploads until process completes > one way or other. > > The issue isn't rapid uploads. The issue is engagement. It's not > productive to ignore the messages on the mailing list for 6 months, and then > to issue a new release saying "we fixed stuff". > > > We have not generally responded to posts regarding procedural matters, and > would leave such discussions to more knowledgeable stewards of the lists where > possible, > > You haven't responded to posts where I ask about the plagiarism. A simple > reply of "oops, sorry, I'll fix it ASAP" has taken over a year to write. > > > 3) Change Tracking > > > > The uploads have generally had extensive changes relating to comments (which > should generally have been summarized by previous email responses to > comments). > > Which I admit did happen sometimes, but not nearly as often as it should > have. Again, see mailing list archives from May 2017. I'm not the only > person who holds this opinion. I'm just the main one pushing the point. > > > Because of this, unless the updates have been for specific purposes (such > as the recent update of the security section) then I would leave the changes > to the diff tool which works pretty effectively. > > The diff tool lets us know what changed in the document. It doesn't let > us know if those changes addressed issues raise on the mailing list. > > To summarize: > > * we have no idea if this revision of the document addresses multiple WG > reviews > > * we have no idea if the document even describes TACACS+ as currently > implemented > > As such, it should not be put into working group last call, or much less > published until such time as those issues are addressed. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Douglas Gash (dcmgash)
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Alan DeKok
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Joe Clarke
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Joe Clarke
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Andrej Ota
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Joe Clarke
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Joe Clarke
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Andrej Ota
- Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-i… Joe Clarke