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: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:03:19 -0600

On 6/15/12 2:29 PM, The IESG wrote:
> 
> 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

Looks good to me. I'd prefer a slightly different model (e.g., group
wiki with a limited number of contributors), but this model is also
workable.

One possible oversight is that this I-D does not describe how the editor
will work on the tao-possible-revision.html file (e.g., will only the
editor have permissions to work on that, might there be multiple
committers, will it be under source control?). Are such details
intentionally out of scope?

Peter

P.S. Two typos:

s/lead/led/
s/propsed/proposed/

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:27:08 -0700

> intentionally out of scope?

I would imagine that that would be determined by the IESG when they pick a Tao editor.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:28:37 -0600

> I would imagine that that would be determined by the IESG when they pick a Tao editor.

Fine with me. I'm not even saying this I-D needs to say it's out of
scope, I merely curious.

/psa

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 23:43:48 +0200

> I would imagine that that would be determined by the IESG when they pick a Tao editor.
Adhering to the principles of oversight rather than control, I would 
imagine that the IESG would tell the editor to use his best judgment, 
and if they don't like his judgment, they'll replace him.
But then I'm an optimist :-)

ObDraftComment: I support the draft.
ObMinorTweak: I think the URL structure for the dated versions is not 
the best one, because it requires all Tao versions to be in the root 
namespace of the IETF web service.

I would prefer that they be named 
www.ietf.org/tao/archive/YYYY-MM-DD.html, which would also give rise to 
a presumption that one could list all versions by going to 
www.ietf.org/tao/archive.
I'd even support the reference to the archive being in the Tao itself, 
making another layer of indirection possible. But the ability to say 
"the Tao said THIS on Feb 16, 2013" is important.

Yours for more nits in the Last Call process :-)

                   Harald

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:13:52 +0100

I suggest to have both webpage and RFC

AB

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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 2012-07-13. 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
>
>
>   Discussion of the "Tao of the IETF" during 2012 made it clear that
>   many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an
>   RFC that needs to be periodically updated.  This document specifies
>   how the Tao will be published as a web page.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:17:14 +0100

It will be better to have both webpage and RFC

AB