Hi Barry, I think from your message, you agree that discussion is important in the decision of updates, which I share. I agree to not repeat any unnecessary info, but if contradictions appear to procedure, it then needs a reference or repeat. The problem is that the I-D does not mention in the publish-procedure-section-2 *discussion* as an important procedure factor for submission nor even refers to what you call process-of-discussion. I think mentioning that editor decides to submit and accept input is a new thing that is not in the procedure you refer to. Therefore, to be clear in the I-D it MUST clarify, is there community consensus with editor decision, OR is their only decision of editor. It is clear from the draft if you read it, that the decision *is not* for the internet-community in two issues: a) editor decision of accepting a propose change, b) editor decision of change-updates to submit to IESG. The discussion in the I-D is mentioned as just for information not as decision making of submission. Please note that this I-D informs: 1) The Tao will be published at <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html> and <https://www.ietf.org/tao.html>. The initial content for the Tao web page will come from the last Internet-Draft that was meant to replace RFC 4677. 2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an informational overview. Therefore, the proposed Tao-webpage is the same. Abdussalam ======================================== On 6/17/12, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to >> 10 >> people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community >> (discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community >> individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does > not >> mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor >> between editor and members, also no announcements of such updates >> mentioned in draft. > > On this, as well as on the rest of the comments in the same message: > The IETF already has a process for discussion, review, and consensus, and > this document neither changes any of it nor, I think, needs to repeat it. > > Barry >