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

WG Chairs

A slight change of thought.

This I-D, as Alan has commented and Doug acknowledges, has several
places where the description of security is more 1997 than 2017.  If we
turn such parts into a clear, concise specification, we may then find
that we have wasted our time since the Security Directorate then says
that no
way can that appear in an RFC, even an Informational one.

Would it be worth seeking guidance now on what is or is not likely to be
acceptable to a Security Directorate review?  Not a line by line
analysis but rather
higher level guidance as to whether such things as MD4, ASCII login,
RFC2433 as Best Practice and so on can appear.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tianran Zhou" <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; "Alan DeKok"
<aland@deployingradius.com>; "Ignas Bagdonas" <ibagdona@gmail.com>
Cc: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>; <opsawg@ietf.org>;
<draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org>; <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>;
<ops-ads@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:18 AM

Thanks Tom for pointing this out.
We appreciate any review comment. That really helps to improve the
document.
I think it's back on the right track now. Hopefully, the authors can
respond to more interactions.

Regards,
Tianran
> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:01 AM
> To: Alan DeKok; Ignas Bagdonas
> Cc: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); opsawg@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs@ietf.org;
> ops-ads@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions,
Status
> and Plans
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <ibagdona@gmail.com>
> To: "Alan DeKok" <aland@deployingradius.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM
>
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > On 13/05/2017 12:59, Alan DeKok wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process
> > described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents. The individual
> draft
> > has been accepted as a WG one a while ago with no changes in author
> > list. If current document authors would like to make any changes to
> > author/co-author/editor list WG chairs will certainly approve those
> > changes. Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current
authors
> > cannot make progress with the document, WG chairs do not have
> intentions
> > of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if
> evidence
> > of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the
expected
> > level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence. The
> process
> > of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been,
> but
> > it is not stalled.
>
> Ignas
>
> I echo part of what Alan says, that for a WG document, the editors
should
> reflect the consensus of the WG.  The problem I see is the lack of
consensus,
> not with people disagreeing, but with an absence of people agreeing.
>
> Alan made a number of comments in October last year, Alexander made
some
> in  November but I did not see much follow up from anyone else to
either
> set of comments.
>
> Trouble is, do the editors incorporate comments that one person has
made
> and noone else has agreed or disagreed with?  There is no good answer.
>
> In other WGs, I have seen ping-pong, one person comments, comments
> incorporated, someone else then disagrees, disagreements incorporated
into
> a new revision, first person comes back, changes incorporated into a
newer
> revision and so on, circling around a lack of consensus.
> Changing editors, unless it is to someone remote from the subject, is
unlikely
> to change things..
>
> I did look at Alan's comments, agreed with some, disagreed with
others,
> ditto Alexander's, but was disinclined to do more with noone else
chipping
> in, especially as several more did chip in in the initial stages of
should
> we adopt this, and what status should it be.
>
> How you stir people into life is a challenge for WG chairs.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Ignas
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg