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

[Robert Drake <[e-mail]>]

On 5/13/2017 7:59 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
>    If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the chairs replace you with authors who will.
That seems unnecessarily rude.


This draft is still about documenting the existing tacacs+ protocol 
right?  Why?

You've been discussing this thing for a year and can't reach a consensus 
about an existing protocol.  I doubt very strongly that a completed 
document will be useful to anyone.  Nobody needs this to implement the 
existing protocol.

My personal belief is that extending the protocol isn't a good idea 
anymore.  Instead just rewrite it to use HTTPS/TLS transport with 
JSON/XML encoding.  That should cut out about half of the documentation 
in the draft.  The new protocol doesn't have to run on the same port.  
It could use 443 or whatever the user declares in the connection URI.  
Vendors could leave their existing tacacs+ client in the code until 
people don't need it anymore.  Servers could be adapted to support both 
protocols.

The most important thing to me is that something gets created.  This 
should be moving from a thought experiment to a reference implementation 
so that people can comment on the details.