Tony, Is there a need to draw a line (over which we will, no doubt, manage to fight in the future)? Can we not just say that updates will be batched and approved "in a timely fashion", and know that updates will receive as much review and discussion as the community thinks they merit? Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tony > Hansen > Sent: 11 June 2012 17:05 > To: IETF > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt > > I'm wondering if there needs to be a distinction between "minor updates" > and "major updates". Minor updates would be the typo variety or a URL > change and wouldn't require much review at all. Major updates would > require non-trivial review. > > Tony Hansen > > On 6/11/2012 11:43 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Paul and Brian: > > > >>>> Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that > >>>> the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG > >>>> (in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF > >>>> consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject > >>>> to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF > >>>> context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated. > >>> It is not what was intended. > >>> > >>> - There was no mention to me of "ad hoc last calls", so I did not include them > in the draft. > >> Well, that was presumably an oversight. The IETF always works by > >> a consensus process, afaik. > > The IESG thinking on this is in line with Brian's thinking. In the past, the Tao has > been published as an informational RFC. The approval process included > community comment and IESG evaluation. A parallel approval process ought to > be used here. > > > > Let's use of a well-known URL for the current approved Tao and a well-known > URL for the draft of the Tao that is under consideration. This will facilitate review > of updates. > > > >>> - Is there an appeals process for the content of the various web pages > created by the IESG? > >> Yes. For many years there has been a presumption that the appeals > >> process in section 6.5 of RFC 2026 can be applied to *any* IESG action. > >> That being so, I suppose it isn't vital to write it down in every > >> document, but it makes things clearer. > > Indeed. Any decision by the IESG is subject to the existing appeals process. > > > > Russ > >