Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] OPSAWG Digest, Vol 105, Issue 119

From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 06:07:57 +0000

Hi Warren,

I am one of the contributing authors in this document. I sincerely
apologise for submitting a document which seemed to evoke passion in
OpsAWG ;-)

As you can tell from my email address, I work for Cisco, which provided
some input in taking the original TACACS and evolving it to TACACS+ in
1990s.

I have double checked with IPR expert (a lawyer) in Cisco and he sees no
IPR issues, and with our IETF experts who know of no IPR which impact
TACACS+ in our pursuit of getting TACACS+ ratified as a standard, if that
is what OpsAWG elects to do.

I can work offline to make sure that we get the proper wording, but to the
absolute best of my knowledge, Cisco has no IPR that applies to the
document.

Just to say, this process came about from engineers who are very
interested in TACACS+ and its adoption and deployment, one of whom (me)
works for Cisco. We want to address the crypto issue it has, and clean up
the document, try to remove ambiguities, and deprecate some really
insecure features. But also want to remove the perception that TACACS+ is
a proprietary Cisco protocol. We thought that working with IETF to
standardise the protocol may help all that, and get some interesting
technical criticism.

Many thanks and Best Regards,

Doug, (Collaborating with: Thorsten, Andrej).

On 15/02/2016 18:46, "OPSAWG on behalf of [email-masked]"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Send OPSAWG mailing list submissions to
>	[email-masked]
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	[email-masked]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	[email-masked]
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of OPSAWG digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1.  Untangling - Explicit call for IPR on
>      draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-00 (Warren Kumari)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:46:37 +0000
>From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
>To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [OPSAWG] Untangling - Explicit call for IPR on
>	draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-00
>Message-ID:
>	<[email-masked]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Dear WG,
>
>Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to see
>this
>much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a bit of
>time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up.
>
>We are going to do a series of steps to get as clear a view of the
>consensus of the WG about this document.   This message is a explicit call
>for any known IPR.
>
>We will follow up with two  other messages, each with a particular
>question
>- the reason for such formality is to try to untangle the many threads
>that
>erupted on the main list.
>
>Many of you have already expressed your opinion but can you please do so
>again in response to the forthcoming two messages so that the record is
>clear.  We expect to determine the path forward in 2 weeks.
>
>Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
>draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
>compliance
>with IETF IPR rules?
>(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)
>
>If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
>please
>reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally aware
>of any relevant IPR.
>
>Scott, Tianran and Warren
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/attachments/20160215/7c6b
>0802/attachment.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of OPSAWG Digest, Vol 105, Issue 119
>****************************************