IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Tue, 16 May 2017 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=63093225e0=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 4648712878D; Tue, 16 May 2017 12:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 j1d2rd9W3IA9; Tue, 16 May 2017 12:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4372712EBE5; Tue, 16 May 2017 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id v4GJjDbq002058; Tue, 16 May 2017 15:45:14 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.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>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans
Thread-Index: AQHSy08ttZSP0sW41keg1j/jrc0SIqHxXY8AgACwjQCAAF7+gIADaB0A///Pz/+AAFRYAIABZPtIgABDGID//8HNAA==
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:13 +0000
Message-ID: <632EB4D0-15C0-4BF7-9187-9AFCD7EDE306@ll.mit.edu>
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> <006101d2cd9c$e8c0afe0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <D53FAB1A.23396E%dcmgash@cisco.com> <010d01d2ce79$477ceda0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <D5411107.2340EF%dcmgash@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5411107.2340EF%dcmgash@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.21.0.170409
x-originating-ip: [172.25.177.148]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3577794312_472391796"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-16_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705160157
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/WWf5gf1fv-E_htdcyKqXf7pkct4>
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 19:49:26 -0000

On 5/16/17, 3:27 PM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dcmgash@cisco.com> wrote:

    >The lack of interactivity was more our fault than any one else's, we
    >took Alan¹s comments and incorporated them into the version we uploaded in
    >Feb.
    >
    >What we should have done was collate Alan¹s comments to promote
    >discussion. We¹re attempting to rectify than that now:
    >
    >1) We put Alan¹s comments on v5 put on a single mail list a few days ago

Doug, IMHO it is less critical to put collated Alan’s comments on the list. We’ve all already seen Alan’s comments, so collating them into a single mail would be of a marginal usefulness.

What the public needs is *your answers to each of those comments* being put on the list. As I said before: “foreach (comment): comment -> change in the draft text” or “comment -> reasons not to address”. 


    >2) We are going to give an initial response ASAP (will take a few days)

That would be fine, IMHO. 

My concern (and displeasure) is that in the past few days we’ve seen plenty of emails on this subject, but nothing along the lines of the above – which IMHO is the only thing that would actually matter (everything else is just waste of bandwidth).


    >3) More discussions will ensure, and other comments on the doc may be
    >generated
    >4) We will hopefully steer towards a consensus that will feed into v7.

Yes and yes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email