Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt> (Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page) to Informational RFC

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:16:33 +0200

+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
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:23:48 -0400

--On Friday, July 06, 2012 07:16 +0200 Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> 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
> suggestion, please read and comment on draft-03 (the subject
> refers to draft-02, did you read draft-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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 00:16:41 +0200

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