--On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 13:44 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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,
Having taken a quick look at -02 in the above context, let me
make an observation and small procedural suggestion:
The information in this I-D is exactly what the title and
abstract suggest (A Good Thing), namely an explanation of the
change from RFC publication and the new procedure. But that
sets a bit of a trap because, if the procedural model changes
--as it inevitably will over time-- the RFC will need to be
revised.
So, I suggest that, after sufficient agreement on this document
and procedure are reached, you take the bulk of this document
and simply make it an appendix to the Tao. Since the IESG has
to approve any changes to the Tao anyway, no control is lost,
but we avoid having to obsolete 4677bis, a document whose
purpose was the get the Tao out of the RFC Series. Then we
produce a very short and focused 4677bis for the RFC Series that
says as little more than "out of the RFC Series, 4677 is
obsolete, doc is located at stable URI ..."
john