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

Hi Tom,

I’d be grateful if you could let me know ;-)

On 16/05/2017 20:18, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

>Doug
>
>When I look at the I-D -06, I am struck by two 'procedural' flaws, at
>the beginning and the end of the I-D, where I am so used to a document
>shepherd saying 'yes, that has been done' that I cannot recall when last
>I saw an I-D, even at an early stage of the WG process, which had not
>got these points right.  Mmm; it ought not to matter, but when I see
>them, well it makes me back off a little.
>
>Have a look and see if you see what I see - if not, I will let you know.
>
>And my Reply All to Ignas gets an SMTP bounce
>"5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1 <lol@cisco.com>... User
>unknown'"
>
>Probably part of the expansion of
>draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org>
>
>Mmmm2
>
>Tom Petch
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <dcmgash@cisco.com>
>To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; "Alan DeKok"
><aland@deployingradius.com>; "Ignas Bagdonas" <ibagdona@gmail.com>
>Cc: <opsawg@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org>;
><opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>; <ops-ads@ietf.org>
>Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 7:10 PM
>
>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
>2) We are going to give an initial response ASAP (will take a few days)
>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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Doug.
>
>On 15/05/2017 18:00, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>----- 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
>>
>