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

Hi Tom,

There was a conclusion based on the WG consensus:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/lR3TFRfaR8OldmPFjuVhRTQZHEE

As the first step, we
"Produce an informational document which documents the TACACS+ protocol as it stands today (as best as we can)."

My suggestion is that we do not cost too much time on the basic TACACS+.

On one hand, Alan as from the SECDIR gave this I-D many useful suggestions. On the other hand, we are going to ask for SECDIR early review once the existing comments are solved. 

Regards,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 12:57 AM
> To: Tianran Zhou; Ignas Bagdonas
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org;
> opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: 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