Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Paul,
At 09:25 20-06-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor. Remember, I was the third editor of the document.

Yes. :-)

Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

I would not put too many administrative details in a RFC as it will be read literally. Here's some suggested text which I'll leave to author discretion:

   The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
   The changes can be discussed on the tao-discuss@xxxxxxxx mailing list.
   The editor submits the revised version of the Tao to the IESG for approval.
   The revised version is published by the IETF Secretariat at
   <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

What was not clear is the how changes make it into the document. Instead of using two steps, you could keep the URL above as the stable one and use your discretion for the editing part. I removed the tao-possible-revision.html as "we" do not want to see a RFP where the IETF gets billed for such work. :-) The editor can work out some details such as automatically picking changes from SVN and pushing it to some work-in-progress web page with the IETF Secretariat. I did not mention "community" in the above. Feel free to add that. There is some overhead in the above. As people will probably get bored after a while, it should be less work.

Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for specifications, not descriptive documents like the Tao.

RFC 2026 is the alternate reality of the IETF. It's convenient to cite it every now and then. If the IESG asks, you could tell it that the information in FYI 17 is simply and obviously obsolete and fits its published "statement" for Historic. I take it that nobody would refer anyone to RFC 4677 except for historical reasons.

I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.

Regards,
-sm


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]