On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Paul: > > It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content. I think that is not the case. Rather, the initial content will come from draft-hoffman-tao4677bis. Good catch. I'll add explicit text in -02 that says that the initial text will come from the most recent proposed revision (and I will *not* put in a draft name). > Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version in the Tao series? No. That seems silly, given that the web page will be done before the RFC. On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:17 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > If the community cares about developing and maintaining a clear > history of changes, it might be slightly advantageous to: > > (i) Make the current RFC the initial web page content > > (ii) Immediately replace it with a (possibly further > revised) version of draft-hoffman-tao4677bis. > > (iii) Put the Tao aside until we are ready for another > update. Yuck. The slight advantage there is hugely overwhelmed by the process hassles. Instead, the first web page should have a section talking about where it came from. > I have trouble convincing myself that is worth even the marginal > extra effort it would take, Good. :-) > but I can see the advantages if > others disagree. On the other hand, publishing > draft-hoffman-tao4677bis in the RFC series seems to me to have > no value at all. There should be an RFC 4677bis but it should > probably say little more than "Tao is now a web page at .... and > it is not being maintained in the RFC Series". That's the purpose of this document. --Paul Hoffman