Hi SM, I thank you for your comments and input, The I-D being discussed (draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02), does mention the discussion on a list, but it does not mention the community or consensus. The point of this I-D is to make the process easier and valuable for users and memebrs, so I don't suggest to make such discussion on the list mandatory for this webpage process. > RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the > various communities to publish a RFC. One of those streams is for > IETF Documents. Please note that the milestone/aim of the I-D and the webpage is to produce a RFC in the end of its progress. I think the webpage is a IETF document published and edited differently than IETF-drafts. So RFC4844 should be considered. Furthermore the I-D avoids to reference or mention IETF procedure documents (mentions obslete documents), I don't know why? > In the I-D being discussed, the document will be > published on a web page. The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the > editor. I gather that those details are not a problem. The problem is not choosing editor, but the webpage process. The Tao webpage is a document but the question was is this document an IETF document or a non-IETF document. Under the procedure IETF-documents have a process. The <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02> draft has a different process even though it is an IETF-document. The draft if approved will Obsletes RFC4677 (this document went through IETF process, and will be replaced by webpage with different process) so the only reference is the webpage and its progress is through new stream of Tao-process. > Are you suggesting that the changes should > be discussed in a Working Group or something else? I suggested the below message: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73750.html I think that discussions should be limited times (in hours or few days) which I prefer to take place in the IETF meetings and getting a community consesus on the updates of the webpage. Because if we have all individual-submissions with discussions and consensus of working group then it will be disaster not making things easier. That is why I suggest Editor acceptance with community consesus, and limited discussions to solve the purpose of this I-D. > BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete. I agree with this suggestions. Regards, AB ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 6/20/12, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > At 03:51 20-06-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> I refere to the IETF process of: preparing the I-D by WG, >>Community-accepting, Submitting, and IESG-approval. The new >>Tao-update-process of the draft is not including the community. The >>IETF process in draft is as : individual preparing, individual submit >>to Editor, Editor decides and accepts, Editor submitting, and >>IESG-approval. >> >>The above are two different IETF submission streams, which may be >>consistent if we include *the community* in accepting submission to >>IESG. > > RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the > various communities to publish a RFC. One of those streams is for > IETF Documents. In the I-D being discussed, the document will be > published on a web page. The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the > editor. I gather that those details are not a problem. > > draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be > discussed on an open, Tao-specific mailing list. The second > paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear about > changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG > accepts proposed changes. Are you suggesting that the changes should > be discussed in a Working Group or something else? > > BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete. > > Regards, > -sm > >