--On Friday, June 15, 2012 13:29 -0700 The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter > to consider the following document: > - 'Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page' > <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt> as Informational RFC > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > solicits final comments on this action. Please send > substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by > 2012-07-13. Hi. Just to make a pair of comments that I've sort of made in other contexts in the particular context of the Last Call. I won't repeat the details. (1) As a general strategy, doing the Tao as a web page seems like exactly the right thing to do. Some sort of staging process and opportunity for review of working drafts by the community as well as the IETF seems important. As far as I can tell, the document covers that adequately although some details are not spelled out as well as some would perhaps prefer. (2) The document itself mixes a historical discussion of how things got to where they are with what is being done going forward. I believe it would be desirable to more clearly separate that material, into either separate documents or into a brief core document that focuses of the three questions of "what is the Tao", "where can it be found", and "what is the revision/ update procedure" and an appendix that includes whatever else is determined to be necessary. In that regard, the abstract of the core (or only) document should not concentrate on when discussions occurred, etc., but simply on what the Tao is and why it might be useful. Liberal borrowing from the abstract of RFC 4677 (or just copying it) would be, IMO, quite appropriate. This is less of a problem than it might otherwise be because the document is so short, but a document that obsoletes RFC 4677 and its predecessors should address the substances addressed by 4677, not serve as a historical summary of a few months of community discussion. Nits: (i) In recent years, the IESG has insisted on specific documentation when one RFC obsoletes another. This draft does not mention the "obsoletes" relationship in the Abstract, Introduction, or any other prominent place. (ii) Second paragraph of current Introduction, first sentence, should contain "discussion that led..." rather than "discussion that lead...". I believe that paragraph is part of the historical discussion that belongs somewhere else. thanks, john