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

[Ignas Bagdonas <[e-mail]>]

Alan,


On 16/05/2017 13:36, Alan DeKok wrote:

>     I don't see how reviews (which were ignored) can be construed as "no evidence" that the authors were ignoring reviews.
>
>    Which was my point.  If document authors issue new revs irrespective of what the WG suggests, the chairs should replace the authors with ones who work towards WG consensus.

No-one has seen the -07 revision yet, therefore it seems to be too early 
to make judgement whether comments and suggestions were or were not 
addressed. Authors have promised to address the raised comments 
discussing them on the list and responding to previous reviews.

I certainly agree with you that comments were not addressed. That is 
history now and reiterating this topic will do nothing to change what 
has already happened. Progress will happen if comments get addressed. 
Authors do have a token on this now.


>    The alternative is to accept a draft as a WG document, and then to allow the authors to do pretty much whatever they want, and then to rubber-stamp the final document as an RFC.

That is not how the IETF works. I fail to see what else could be 
commented here.


>
>    I just don't understand what point you were trying to make here.  The only subjects you addressed were ones I hadn't raised.
>

The point of my mail was on the changes to the list of authors. To 
summarize - changes to author list are not happening at this time. 
Important part to emphasize is "at this time".

Ignas