+1 I support all your suggestions (i.e. point 1 and 2, and nits i and ii ) , and hope that iesg, and editor agrees, and that the community considers them for progress. I seen the change in the draft-document-03 which I think getting better but still not satisfied The new vesion 3 draft (dated 5 July) does not include all your suggestion, please read and comment on draft-03 (the subject refers to draft-02, did you read draft-03?). http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-03 AB ============================================= My previous input to the subject: +++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73771.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73776.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73781.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73782.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73791.html ============================================== > >> 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 at ietf.org 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 >