Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-?? overview of significant changes over the last year

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 18, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Andrej Ota <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> TACACS+ draft had undergone a number of changes since revision -06 back in the February 2017 and we, the "collective of authors" have been less than satisfactory on keeping the WG updated. This is an attempt to start fixing the problem by going through changes, enumerating them and explaining the reason for each significant change.

  That's good.

> A year's worth of changes is a round number and -06 was also the version where we misread Alan's intention and made the mistake of including his text verbatim.

  The message I sent yesterday said *explicitly* that including the text verbatim was fine, so long as attribution was given.

  The message from Scott Bradner to the list last year also said this:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04835.html

  The issue is *not* including the text verbatim.  The issue is the failure to acknowledge authorship.

  I fail to understand how this point has been misunderstood.

> I will skip the minor changes that deal with things like 's/Connect/Connection/' or updates to author's contact details. I will also be sending the overview over multiple e-mails, each dealing with a specific section of the draft, so nobody will have to read through a single huge tome if you only care or wonder about specific parts of the draft. I understand this is far from ideal, but the damage had been done and this split into smaller and more manageable chunks should go a long way towards getting changes reviewed and understood, one by one.

  That's good.

> I do not wish to ignore the metaphorical elephant in the room. However, I wish to split technical and organizational conversations into their separate threads to avoid confusing the two. While I'll be describing changes in the "technical" conversation, I and the rest of the authors will continue listening and responding to Alan's organizational criticism, past and future, in what we believe is the most constructive way: improving in the areas where we were found wanting.

  The goal *is* to have a specification after all.

  I am, however, deeply concerned at the miscommunication.  The messages could not have been more clear for the past year, and they are *still* being misunderstood.

  Alan DeKok.