On 17/10/2017 03:18, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Spencer,
>
> On 10/16/17 3:51 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>
>> Except that you have to start somewhere. And our documentation
>> isn't up
>> to date.
>>
>>
>> Could you say more about that? It sounds like something needs to be fixed.
>
> Yes, the Tao needs a dust off.[1] See Section 2.2.2 of that document.
> There are probably other areas that need work. Similarly, "Bringing New
> Work into the IETF"[2] needs a dust off* (see slides 6 and 7). I will
> also add that these documents are not exactly prominent, either on our
> current web site or on beta.ietf.org. Might I suggest that "Getting
> Involved" be just a bit more prominently featured?
There are also a number of fixes pending in [3]. I sort of went on strike
about maintaining it when we were promised that the new web site was almost
ready, so it hasn't been updated since 2015-08-25. Just to give an idea
of the rate of churn in process-related documents, here's the list of
pending updates since then:
RFC 7649, The Jabber Scribe Role at IETF Meetings
BCP 25, RFC 7776, IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
BCP 101, RFC 7691, Updating the Term Dates of IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Members
BCP 205, RFC 7942 on Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section
BCP 97, RFC 8067 on Updating When Standards Track Documents May Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level
BCP 14, RFC 8174 on RFC 2119 Key Words: Clarifying the Use of Capitalization
BCP 79, RFC 8179 on Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
BCP 26, RFC 8126 on Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
Brian
[3] https://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
> Eliot
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/tao.html
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/edu/documents/81IETF-New-Work.pdf
> * (Both of these works were fine documents and remain mostly fine, and
> it was awfully generous of those who put them together to have done so).
>
>