Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:49:35 -0600

Overall I continue to think that this is a helpful document, as were its
predecessors.

That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document
are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial
words and phrases might best be changed to more standard English.
Naturally one can quibble about particulars, but here are some examples
as I see them:

"get into the swing of things"
"give them a warm, fuzzy feeling"
"happenings"
"unsung heroes"
"home base"
"pet project"
"pet peeve"
"leaps and bounds"
"get technical"
"discussions of cosmic significance"
"gatherings of the tribes"
"kicks in"
"breath of fresh air"
"big-name"
"take the pluge"

I realize that such words and phrases lend a friendly tone to the
document, but IMHO that friendliness will be lost on non-native speakers.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:22:01 +0200

Hi,

I agree with much of what Peter Saint-Andre wrote.  In addition I
suggest the following changes:

  * I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in some way
    out of date.  I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, the
    reference should be removed.
  * It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the
    ISOC Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization
    process.  In this way it may also make sense to move Section 3.2.1
    further back behind the IAB.
  * I don't know about anyone else, but my experience has changed with
    regard to there being a "fair amount of time for socializing".  I
    would say there is a modest amount of time for socializing.
  * The Tao mentions that we meet once a year in each region.  I don't
    think that's true for Asia at this point.  The text might call out
    that we meet where there are participants, or words that the IAOC
    might provide.
  * The last paragraph in Section 4 is outdated.  Everyone uses wireless
    these days– everywhere at nearly every meeting.
  * 4.12 really should be a top level section (moved further back).
  * Section 5 (Working Groups) really should be moved forward (after
    Section 3 but before what is now Section 4).
  * Move acknowledgments to the back.  As it stands that text forms a
    disconnect between the Intro and later sections.

Finally I have been told that the Tao is meant to be a living document,
e.g., a wiki.  Is that now not to be the case?

Eliot

On 5/31/12 12:56 AM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
>    Force'
>   <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> as Informational RFC
>
> The Tao of the IETF has grown a bit stale.  For example, many of the
> tasks that were requested by email are now done with online tools,
> completely avoiding manual intervention by the Secretariat.  This is
> an effort to refresh the document.
>
> 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
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-06-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>    This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and
>    Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and
>    introduces the standards process.  It is not a formal IETF process
>    document but instead an informational overview.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis/ballot/
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:31:29 +0100

On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:

...
>     out of date.  I don't know whether this is true, 

That sound like somebody's personal opinion, but it is still a BCP
and therefore still represents IETF consensus.

>     but if it is, the

I don't think so.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:36:40 +0100

> words and phrases might best be changed to more standard English.

Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The informal
style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it.

Maybe we can ask some of the people concerned, such as recent presenters
of the Newcomers tutorial in languages other than English.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:59:04 +0200

> style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it.

Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall writing style. 
It is possible to write in an informal style without using 
colloquialisms.  I could, for example, insert some side comment here 
that would be informal and lack colloquialisms.  By some measures, the 
preceding sentence is an example of exactly that...

Colloquialisms are well known to impede understanding by non-native 
English speakers.

So, do you have any evidence that this is /not/ a problem for that part 
of our community?

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:23:04 +0100

> 3.2.4.  IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
> 
>    The core registrar for the IETF's activities is the IANA (see
>    http://www.iana.org).  Many Internet protocols require that someone
>    keep track of protocol items that were added after the protocol came
>    out.  Typical examples of the kinds of registries needed are for TCP
>    port numbers and MIME types.  The IAB has designated the IANA
>    organization to perform these tasks, and the IANA's activities are
>    financially supported by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>    Names and Numbers.  The IAB selected ICANN, and the IANA activities
>    are provided for free as specified in [RFC2860].

The phrase "The IAB selected ICANN" is, as the saying goes, economical with
the truth. The fact is that we had no choice at the time. Suggestion
for the last sentence:

  The IAB and the IETF established a Memorandum of Understanding with
  ICANN [RFC2860], under which the IANA services are provided for free
  to the IETF.

Nit:

> Editor is a separate job. Today, these jobs are preformed by

s/preformed/performed/

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:24:57 +0100

On 2012-05-31 07:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall writing style. It
> is possible to write in an informal style without using colloquialisms. 
> I could, for example, insert some side comment here that would be
> informal and lack colloquialisms.  By some measures, the preceding
> sentence is an example of exactly that...
> 

I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking
some of them ;-)

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:47:31 +0200

On 5/31/2012 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> some of them;-)

1.  Reliance on self-reporting for such things is methodologically 
problematic.  It presumes a degree of self-awareness that is often 
missing.  For example a native speaker of a language that uses noun 
doubling -- saying the noun twice -- to indicate plurals was quite 
insistent with me that that wasn't the rule.

2.  To claim a lack of evidence presumes some previous effort to acquire 
it.  However a quick search discloses:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=054711CCAB4AFB348F7E70C9079E7305.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2546012

http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/theses/id/1031/rec/9

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Detd&ei=iyDHT4eBB874sgaa-rGQDw&usg=AFQjCNFnYm2MzlDnknB6AzfB0Oi4tUVyVg

among others.

The mere existence of these ought to make clear that there is a 
significant issue in the use of colloquialisms with non-native listeners.

d/

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:16:52 -0700 (PDT)

> style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it.

"Informal style" does not equal heavy use of (localized) 
colloquialisms. My copy editor always reminds me that I have an 
international readership and thus should avoid such phrases as the 
ones listed by Peter.

> of the Newcomers tutorial in languages other than English.

Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or 
measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they
understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-)

"Having evindence" that someone did not understand a particular phrase
gets into the weeds of cultural differences which go way beyond a 
group of engineers who don't understand the meaning of "approximately".
I suggest we NOT conduct that particular line of questioning, really.

>     Brian

Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:24:50 +0300

Hi Peter

I tend to disagree. I am not a native English speaker, although I will admit to watching way too much American TV in my teens. 

I believe most of these should be recognizable to anyone who has learned enough English to participate meaningfully in IETF mailing lists and discussions. What you haven't seen before, you can usually either deduce ("cosmic significance" would obviously mean a lot of significance), or else easily searchable on the net or in idiom books, although I did get some incorrect results searching google for "warm fuzzy feeling".

Yes, we should keep both messages and documents straight-forward, and avoid cultural references and memes (like "home base" or "I do have a Dalek but I do not yet have a Tardis", or any reference to taking arrows to the knee), but I don't think it's necessary to go back and prune all idioms out of a document.

Yoav

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:32:45 +0200

On 5/31/2012 8:22 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> The Tao mentions that we meet once a year in each region.  I don't think
> that's true for Asia at this point.  The text might call out that we
> meet where there are participants, or words that the IAOC might provide.

The relatively recent change in policy is to average one meeting in each 
region every year.  The current departure from that policy is due to 
logistics and cost issues, not a change in policy.

Hence, possible language could be:

    The IETF policy is to meeting in each region once a year, as possible.

Or the like.

d/

ps.  this note is a personal offering, not an IAOC one.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:24:40 -0700

>   <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> as Informational RFC

In the Introduction Section:

   "This will give them a warm, fuzzy feeling and enable them to
    make the meeting and the Working Group discussions more
    productive for everyone."

Reading 51 pages may give people who are a bit stale a warm, fuzzy 
feeling.  I don't think that is what newcomers seek.  Reading this 
draft does not make the meeting or Working Group discussions more 
productive except for people who have been around before November, 2008.

Section 3.2.1 mentions "ISOC (Internet Society)".  Didn't ISOC 
rebrand itself to "Internet Society"?

   "The ISOC is one of the major unsung heroes of the Internet."

This sounds like a line from the marketing department.

According to www.ietf.org, the "Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF) is an organized activity of the Internet Society 
(ISOC)".   This draft places ISOC at the top of the hierarchy.  Does 
that mean that ISOC runs the IETF?

In Section 3.2.2:

   "It administers the process according to the rules and procedures
    that have been ratified by the ISOC Board of Trustees."

Isn't the process (and rules) documented through BCPs?  Are the BCPs 
ratified by the ISOC Board of Trustees?

   "Because of this, one of the main reasons that the IESG might block
    something that was produced in a WG is that the result did not really
    gain consensus in the IETF as a whole, that is, among all of the
    Working Groups in all Areas."

The above does not seem correct to me.  All working groups do not 
participate through this mailing list.  This list is more of a venue 
for the IETF as a whole, i.e. its participants and not its Working 
Groups, to provide substantive comments about a draft during a Last 
Call.  These substantive comments tends to include "+1" as it is 
viewed as a way for some participants to make their vote heard.  The 
origins of the "+1" can be traced back to another community, which is 
unrelated to the IETF, where contributors actually vote.

In Section 3.2.3:

   "Approves the appointment of the IANA"

Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision?

In Section 3.2.5:

   "Once an RFC is published, it is never revised."

That can be debatable [1].

In Section 3.2.7:

   "Few IETF participants come into contact with the IETF Trust,
    which is a good sign that they are quietly doing their job."

This sounds more like marketing.

In Section 3.3:

   'People who would like to "get technical" may also join the IETF
    general discussion list'

People who would like to get a vague idea of IETF politics may also 
join the IETF general discussion lists.  Some of the topics discussed 
on that mailing list are:

  - What is a "MUST"

  - Future Handling of the Blue Sheets

  - IETF aging

  - Proposed IESG Statements (not even mentioned in the draft)

  - Is IPv6 bad news

  - Why is DNS broken

  - A proxy war between the IETF and the ITU

  - Shared IPv4 address space

I wouldn't describe the above-mentioned topics as being of cosmic significance.

In Section 4:

  "primary goal is to reinvigorate the WGs to get their tasks done"

After watching two people taking shots at low flying ducks, my guess 
is that such action does have an invigorating effect.  Those ducks 
must have read the current version of the Tao to learn the inner 
workings.  There were a couple of unfortunate accidents [1].

   "although IASA kicks in additional funds for things such as the audio
    broadcast of some Working Group sessions.

This is an unnecessary detail.  How important is it to know that some 
body within the IETF called IASA is paying for that?

   "There is no exposition hall"

Isn't there a plan to have an exposition during meetings?

In Section 4.5:

   "These are used for long-term archival purpose to show how many
    people came to a particular meeting and, in rare cases, exactly
    who showed up."

What's the consensus on "Blue Sheets" these days?

In Section 5.2:

   "Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain
   consensus on the WG mailing list."

Are decisions taken during meetings or only on the mailing list?

   "There are numerous examples of important decisions made in
    WG meetings that are later overturned on the mailing list,
    often because someone who couldn't attend the meeting pointed
    out a serious flaw in the logic used to come to the decision."

The above does not seem correct.

In Section 7.3:

  '[RFC2223], "Instructions to RFC Authors", describes the submission format.'

Isn't RFC 2223 considered as Historic?  I doubt that the RFC editor 
uses that RFC.

In Section 7.4:

   "To become an Internet Standard, an RFC must have multiple
    interoperable implementations and the unused features in the
    Proposed Standard must be removed; there are additional
    requirements listed in [BCP9]."

Is this correct?  Unused features (the MAY) are not removed in practice.

In B.1:

   "P4.  Participation in the IETF or of its WGs is not fee-based or
         organizationally defined, but is based upon self-identification
         and active participation by individuals."

What is the meaning of self-identification?

In B.2:

   "P7.   Dissent, complaint, and appeal are a consequence of the IETF's
          nature and should be regarded as normal events, but ultimately
          it is a fact of life that certain decisions cannot be
          effectively appealed."

Is this a roundabout way of saying that a person can appeal but it 
won't change anything?

   "P10.  A community process is used to select the leadership."

It's not a community process in my opinion (see NomCom selection process).

   "P11.  Leaders are empowered to make the judgment that rough consensus
          has been demonstrated.  Without formal membership, there are no
          formal rules for consensus."

This is like using the draft as a backdoor to say something.  It 
looks like accountability is being glossed over.  I suggest renaming 
B.2 as Animal Farm [1].

In B.3:

   "P14.  Parts of the process that have proved impractical should be
          removed or made optional."

Why is the above in this draft?

In B.5:

   "P30.  Standards Track and Best Current Practice documents must be
          subject to IETF wide rough consensus (Last Call process)."

Is it "rough consensus" or "consensus"?

Some parts of this draft are well-written.  Other parts comes out as 
nostalgia instead of providing a view of the inner workings of the 
IETF.  Overall this draft could be more effective in helping 
newcomers if it was reorganized and if it used a language which is 
more accessible to non-English speakers [2].  There is truth in 
advertising and what the IETF would like people to believe.  If the 
objective is the later, it has been met.  There is a long coverage of 
the meeting details.  That can be traced back to a RFC written in 
1993.  In the old days meetings could have been considered as "the 
IETF".  I would describe meetings more as a landmark nowadays than 
being "the IETF".

I don't think I know what "the IETF" is.  Some of the people on this 
mailing list have been active in the IETF for the last 19 years and 
they may have a better idea of what the IETF universe must be.  If 
this is their idea of a better idea, I'll say "ok".  There is a world 
out there.  That world has a different view of the IETF.  After 
reading this draft that world will still have a disconnected view of 
the IETF.  It could be said that "that world" is not important, that 
newcomers are not important, that those who have built the Internet 
know better.

I am going to file the minority report on this draft before the one 
[1] that sometimes does that.  BTW, I don't see the "please be 
patient with the old folks" advice in this draft.  Is it politically 
incorrect to say that?

Regards,
-sm

1. Insert smiley
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7iS4aZHas

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:58:59 +0100

I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say "yes, I found that made the document less
useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these
changes were worth it.

> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=054711CCAB4AFB348F7E70C9079E7305.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2546012

Paywalled. Abstract says "comprehen-sibility of the non-native's
interlanguage" so is a worse sinner IMO:-)

> http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/theses/id/1031/rec/9

Drives NoScript bonkers and needs some kind of FF plug in.

> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Detd&ei=iyDHT4eBB874sgaa-rGQ…

289 pages, so only read abstract.

That's about adolescents. My experience at IETF meetings is
that more native English speakers seem to behave like
adolescents, but maybe that's just me:-)

It does make the point that there's a (presumably positive)
correlation between understanding of idiom and academic
achievement,

I guess the argument could also be made that the Tao should
be about as difficult to read as a typical IETF mailing list.

S.

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:05:34 +0200

> useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these

As a non-native speaker I agree. I think colloquial is fine. The one 
thing causes me some trouble is all the references that Americans make 
to sports that nobody in the civilized world cares about ;-) ("left 
field", "Hail Mary passes" etc.) But I think the Tao pretty much avoids 
those (perhaps "Home base" is the exception).

Klaas

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:33:28 -0400

> useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these

Another non-native English speaker here. Didn't have any problem 
understanding the Tao. Its level of language made me more interested in 
the IETF. Although my level of English is better than other non-native 
speakers'. Non-native != bad at English.

I think colloquialisms may often be as hard to understand as excellent 
but seldom-used vocabulary. Should we also "dumb down" our level of 
language? Such as this:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia

I don't think so.

Thanks,
Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:53:53 -0400

--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 07:31 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>   * I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in
>>   some way out of date.  I don't know whether this is true, 
> 
> That sound like somebody's personal opinion, but it is still a
> BCP and therefore still represents IETF consensus.

Brian,

Regardless of how I feel about this particular case, I don't
understand how to put your comment in context.  In particular,
would you 

* Assert that the IETF is so diligent about its process BCPs
that any that have become out of date, overtaken by events, or
otherwise irrelevant have been immediately and formally declared
obsolete or historic?  I have better ways to spend my time at
the moment, but I imagine that many members of the community
could come up with lists of counterexamples rather quickly
(perhaps starting from how long it took us to get "automatic
review" out of RFC 2026).

* When a document is revised ("updated" or "obsoleted") omitting
a reference that appeared in the earlier version requires a
special consensus call rather than treating consensus on the new
document, once achieved, as atomic?   Granted, the relatively
new provisions requiring identification and explanation of what
was obsoleted or updated are a step toward making sure that
those participating in the consensus process are aware of what
happened but (i) those provisions have, no far, not been
extended to require a discussion of every changed reference and
(ii) are not themselves in a BCP or other document that has been
documented as achieving community consensus on the details.
Independent of that BCP problem, would you advocate making each
new document list all of the references to BCP or Standards
Track documents that were not carried forward and identifying
the reasons?

     john

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:02:01 -0400

>>     reference should be removed.

I just want to support the sense of this message.  The mission
statement is one of the few things that anchors and orients the work
of the IETF -- and personally I like it.  If people think it's out of
date, let them say explicitly why (they can still do so anonymously)
so we can have a real discussion.  I don't want to have doubt cast on
the mission statement, and have our leadership feel a need to
reconsider it, because someone somewhere might have said something
general about not liking it.  And in any case as long as we have a
mission statement the Tao should refer to it.

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:19:46 -0400

--On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 15:56 -0700 The IESG
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
> to consider the following document:
> - 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet
> Engineering Task    Force'
> The Tao of the IETF has grown a bit stale.  For example, many
> of the tasks that were requested by email are now done with
> online tools, completely avoiding manual intervention by the
> Secretariat.  This is an effort to refresh the document.

I'd like to move this discussion up a level from discussions
about the present state of the text.  

The community has concluded several times that certain types of
documents are better handled as web pages (wiki or otherwise),
by published "statements", or even as permanent I-Ds, rather
than as archival RFCs.  Examples include the "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" sequence, the "Requests for Comments
Summary", the "Instructions to RFC Authors", procedures of the
IAOC and other bodies, and a series of IESG statements.  

I've argued that we use RFCs for anything of normative
significance, even when the only marginal value the RFC provides
is a good time-stamped snapshot (and sometimes lost those
arguments).  But this is an Informational document merely
provides advice, general guidance about procedures, and pointers
to the real specifications.

I suggest that, if anything is stale, it is RFC 4677, not the
rolling I-D updates that Paul has been maintaining from time to
time.  I haven't pointed a newcomer to the IETF to the RFC,
rather than the current I-D, for years.  I assume that others
have done similarly.

Assuming Paul isn't planning to get this published as an RFC and
then immediately retire from the IETF and that we don't have a
delusion that this document will not need to be maintained and
updated as things change, I propose the following:

(1) Establish the Tao as a modified Wiki, complete with live
HTML links to relevant documents and other relevant
discussions.. Provide some mechanism for comments to the editor
or even discussion that works better than the RFC Errata
process.  Turn maintenance of that page over to a volunteer or
two (ideally someone young enough to learn a lot from the
process) or the Secretariat.   Before someone says "cost",
please calculate the costs to the community of an extended Last
Call in which people debate details of wording.

(2) Appoint Paul as chair of an editorial committee with zero or
more additional members to be appointed at his discretion
subject to advice and consent of the IESG.  That committee gets
to consider whether to make changes.  If they get it wrong, they
are subject to the community's normal forms of abuse and, in
principle, appeals.  That could add a bit of work for the IESG
but I suggest only a bit and less than running a Last Call.

(3) Replace/ obsolete RFC 4677 by a document modeled on RFC
5000.  I.e., it should explain why we are maintaining the Tao as
one or more web pages and should provide a durable pointer to
how the web page can be found.

just my opinion,
   john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:36:16 +0100

John,

> review" out of RFC 2026).

True, but adding to what Scott Brim said, where is the evidence that the
mission statement is OBE? The comment I was responding to seemed
quite gratuitous.

> Track documents that were not carried forward and identifying

Certainly not, although there might be cases where it was
useful. ("Since carrier pigeons have gone extinct, the mapping
to Avian Carriers has been removed from this specification.")

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:42:25 +0100

John,

On 2012-05-31 16:19, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> Call in which people debate details of wording.

+- some trivia such as avoiding the fuzziness of a wiki, isn't that
what http://www.ietf.org/tao.html already achieves?

I tend to agree with your suggestions below.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:44:32 +0100

On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote:

...
> Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision? 

The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.

  Brian

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:55:47 -0800

> those (perhaps "Home base" is the exception).

A previous employer's HR team put together training material
for those of us who were helping with university recruiting and
it was one extended American football metaphor.  Since nearly
all the engineers who were volunteering were Indian or Chinese
it turned out to be more confusing than effective (and not
necessarily understandable by North American nerds, either).

I tend to use a lot of idiomatic language when I write but I
do understand the issues around use of regional idioms, and I
note that so far of the non-native speakers who've commented,
all are either European or Israeli.  I'm wondering if regional
idioms are as clear to people from east, southeast, and south
Asian countries.  Also, for whatever it's worth, the English
idioms under discussion all seem to be American.

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked] (Martin Rex)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:39:44 +0200 (CEST)

> useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these

+1

I do not believe that *over*simplyfying the language is beneficial for
a clearly non-technical document.  Using a language that is similar
to discussion on mailing lists should be perfectly OK, as long as
the colloquial expressions can still be googled easily, for those
not familiar with them.  I have to google Dilberts and xkcd every once
in a while, an those sometimes contain very "local" expressions that
are really difficult to find -- and still I'm OK with this.

-Martin

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 23:22:12 +0300

> are really difficult to find -- and still I'm OK with this.

I had to look up some things when I ready The Adventures of ACTION ITEM for the first time[1], but the TAO draft is nowhere near that level. Besides, it's essential vocabulary for anyone seeking a career in project management.

Yoav

[1] http://professionalsuperhero.com/

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 23:36:08 +0100

> understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-)

I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to understand some things that I say :-)

Ben

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:44:12 -0700

On 5/31/12 15:36 , Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>>  measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if
>> they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa
>> :-)
> 
> I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm
> regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to
> understand some things that I say :-)

Do we spell Standardization with and s or a z?

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:04:29 -0700

> how the web page can be found.

Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document.

Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:30:17 +0100

On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one
> editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do
> it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals
> in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document.

In practice, if this is to be a living document then it should be open for
inspection and poking rather than preserved in formaldehyde and put in a
display case, only to be opened occasionally when the curator decides the
glass needs some dusting.  That way leads to sclerosis.

Please put it on a wiki and put all changes through a lightweight review
system.  If someone makes a change which doesn't work, then it can be
reverted quickly and easily.  This approach is much more in line with the
ietf approach of informality / asking for forgiveness rather than
permission / rough consensus + running code / etc.

Nick

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:50:10 -0700

> glass needs some dusting.  That way leads to sclerosis.

Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly what we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web page instead of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you saying that the current system (which you have not commented on until now) is sclerotic (a word that I have wanted to use since I learned it in high school)?

> permission / rough consensus + running code / etc.

In the IETF approach, only the authors of an Internet-Draft can change the contents of that draft. I hope you are not proposing a change to that as well.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:59:41 -0700

> Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits…

wfm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:04:13 -0600

>> Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fit…

Me, too. And I'd volunteer to help maintain it. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Fadi Mohsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 20:28:50 -0400

Awesome idea, I will be more than happy to be part of it.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>wrote:

> >> Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we
> already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who
> approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a
> "last modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus
> in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip
> the RFCizing for this round.
> >
> > wfm
>

-- 
Fadi.Mohsen

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 20:32:08 -0400

--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 16:04 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> discussions.. Provide some mechanism for comments to the
>> editor or even discussion that works better than the RFC
>> Errata process.  Turn maintenance of that page over to a
>> volunteer or two (ideally someone young enough to learn a lot
>> from the process) or the Secretariat.   Before someone says
>> "cost", please calculate the costs to the community of an
>> extended Last Call in which people debate details of wording.
>> 
>> (2) Appoint Paul as chair of an editorial committee with zero
>> or more additional members to be appointed at his discretion
>> subject to advice and consent of the IESG.  That committee
>> gets to consider whether to make changes.  If they get it
>> wrong, they are subject to the community's normal forms of
>> abuse and, in principle, appeals.  That could add a bit of
>> work for the IESG but I suggest only a bit and less than
>> running a Last Call.
>> 
>> 5000.  I.e., it should explain why we are maintaining the Tao
>> as one or more web pages and should provide a durable pointer
>> to how the web page can be found.

> Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should
> have one editor who takes proposed changes from the community
> the same way we do it now. Not all suggestions from this
> community, even from individuals in the leadership, are ones
> that should appear in such a document.

Paul, that is precisely what I meant by "modified Wiki" and the
editorial committee comment.  Note that I was not only proposing
appointing you (in recognition both of doing a good job and of
the status quo) but giving you discretion over whether you
wanted a committee.   If that wasn't clear, I apologize.  If it
is clear now (whether it was before or not), kumbayah.
 
> Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points
> out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one
> leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think
> "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last modified" date on
> it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus in the
> community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and
> skip the RFCizing for this round.

Wfm.  And also, I think, completely consistent with what I was
trying to suggest.  Make that "IETF Chair or designee" and you
are back to my editorial committee, modulo my desire to make you
the final authority unless extraordinary measures are taken
rather than adding to the required task list of the IETF Chair
or even the IESG more generally.

best,
   john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:46:25 -0700

Hi Paul,
At 16:04 31-05-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>needed. If there is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy 
>to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round.

I'll volunteer to help.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. To see what the Web 3.0 folks are up to, see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki

---

From: "GT RAMIREZ, Medel G." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:58:18 +0800

Wish come true...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
SM
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Paul Hoffman
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Making the Tao a web page

Hi Paul,

I'll volunteer to help.

Regards,
-sm

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Jun 2012 01:36:40 -0000

>Do we spell Standardization with and s or a z?

Yez.

R's,
John

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:53:22 -0400

> The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.

See e.g.

http://ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

-- 
- Thierry Moreau

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:38:42 -0700

> http://ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

You're correct that NTIA wants to pay someone to do the "protocol parameter" job. The IAB can decide to not use that office.