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

["Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alan,

So our response to your reviews has been to incorporate, where feasible,
and where we can apply then, to the doc.

Would you have a preferred method that we responded?

Thanks.


On 12/05/2017 20:47, "Alan DeKok" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On May 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>> 1) Regarding the use of uncredited text from Alan DeKok:
>> 
>> It is certainly the case that Alan has spent time actively engaged in
>>the
>> process of critiquing this document to improve it, and provided numerous
>> proposed textual suggestions,. We would be very happy to acknowledge
>> Alan¹s contribution to the document by adding wording that is agreeable
>>to
>> Alan, in the next draft. In fact not having this acknowledgement for
>> Alan¹s contribution so far was an oversight, for which we apologise to
>> Alan.
>
>  Thank you.
>
>> However at this time we do not have plans to change the list of authors.
>
>  I will note that document authors serve at the discretion of the WG /
>chairs / AD.
>
>> Alan: if you feel that we have exploited your suggestions too fully,
>>such
>> that an acknowledgement in the document would be unsatisfactory
>> recompense, then we are happy to consider removing all text that you
>> identify, that you feel is derived too closely from your work.
>
>  It would generally seem to be better to acknowledge people who have
>contributed substantially to the draft, instead of removing and
>re-writing their text.
>
>  The point of the draft is to have a documented protocol, not to
>artificially limit the set of authors.
>
>> 2) Definition of Done
>> 
>> We note that there is still comments along the lines that the document
>>is
>> not ready, in that the protocol is still not adequately described. We
>> would like to make sure that the next version does adequately describe
>>the
>> protocol. 
>> 
>> Rather than to chase a cycle of comment/response, we¹d like to see if we
>> can determine what the ³Definition of Done² checklist and metrics would
>> be, by which we can measure that the content is be acceptable for the WG
>> for such a protocol as TACACS+.
>
>  As I've suggested and others have agreed, what people want is a
>response to reviews.
>
>> For example, as a start point for this, I think we can define:
>
>  Since drafts proceed to RFC via WG consensus, I would suggest that not
>responding to reviews is a de facto admission that the draft does not
>have WG consensus.
>
>> 1. The packet formats: defining fields and their constraints
>> 2. Identification of fields whose values have meaning for protocol flow.
>> This will include error and fail fields. The way that these fields
>> influence the flow must be documented.
>> 3. Identification of the fields which have a common meaning, but are not
>> intended to direct protocol flow.
>> 4. Identification of fields whose values have meaning in terms of the
>> deployment, which would simply be listed.
>
>  All of these topics and more are addressed in my reviews.
>
>> If there are other aspects of the protocol, whose absence would mean
>>that
>> the protocol is not fully described, we would welcome input to help us.
>
>  I've given you input, which has largely been ignored.
>
>> 3) Next Steps:
>> 
>> We have two next steps:
>> 
>> 3.1) We will produce a new revision correcting the issues such as the
>> email address of Lol Grant and the above mentioned acknowledgement of
>> Alan, and incorporate lessons from 2) above.
>> 3.2) We will provide a summary of the changes between the original draft
>> spec from 1998 and the new draft.
>
>  i.e. you won't bother to respond to reviews, you want the WG to read
>the draft again to see if the comments have been addressed.
>
>  Again, drafts get published based on WG consensus.  Ignoring WG
>consensus is just bad practice, and unproductive.
>
>
>  At this point, I'm done.  I oppose any and all publication of this
>draft until such time as the authors can demonstrate that they've
>addressed concerns raised here.
>
>  I will continue to respond to Q&A about my reviews, but I see no
>benefit in reviewing new versions of the draft.
>
>
>  Alan DeKok.
>