Hi John, Let's wait for the iesg and I trust they will find the solution after they read our comments. I beleive that your comments are sound, and will be taken by the iesg. If things turn against your suggestions there are some procedure-options to go forward, but I don't think will be in that direction. AB On 7/6/12, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Friday, July 06, 2012 07:16 +0200 Abdussalam Baryun > <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> +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 > > Abdussalam, > > Paul's note about draft 03 indicates that he posted it partially > in response to my comments. Those comments were based on 02. > >From my point of view, there is always a question about how much > energy a document like this is worth: it is not normative or > authoritative and, while I'd prefer to see it done differently > (and said so in a follow-up note after skimming -03), I've got > other IETF work to do and would prefer to see Paul and the IESG > working on the Tao text itself rather than fine-tuning this > document. > > I personally believe that the document could be further improved > by moving it toward my earlier suggestions. I believe that > more "what is this about" text belong in the Abstract and, in > particular, that the relationship of the Tao (whether as an RFC > or as a web page) deserves more explicit treatment than the > second sentence of the Introduction. And I believe that forcing > another RFC if details of the revision process are changed is a > bad idea and so think that Section 2 (of -03) should talk about > an initial procedure and/or in much more general terms but > should then push details and changes off to the Tao itself > (perhaps as an appendix). Ultimately, if we cannot trust the > IESG and the Editor to be careful and sensible about this > document, we are going to have problems that fine-tuning the RFC > text can't prevent. > > But, if Paul and the IESG don't agree, I'm not convinced the > subject justifies a lot more energy. > > best, > john > >