Subject: Publishing the Tao as a web page

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:19:53 -0700

See draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00, just published. I am the editor of that draft, but the ideas in it come from the IESG. The IESG didn't pre-review the draft, but it is based on what I was told was agreed to during the IESG telechat on Thursday.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:01:12 -0700

Based on the earlier comments, I have revised the proposal. See draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-01, diffs at <tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-01>.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:06:59 -0400

Paul:

It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content.  I think that is not the case.  Rather, the initial content will come from draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.

Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version in the Tao series?

Russ

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:17:26 -0400

--On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 16:06 -0400 Russ Housley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Paul:
> 
> It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web
> page content.  I think that is not the case.  Rather, the
> initial content will come from draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
> 

Russ,

If the community cares about developing and maintaining a clear
history of changes, it might be slightly advantageous to:

	(i) Make the current RFC the initial web page content
	
	(ii) Immediately replace it with a (possibly further
	revised) version of draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
	
	(iii) Put the Tao aside until we are ready for another
	update.

I have trouble convincing myself that is worth even the marginal
extra effort it would take, but I can see the advantages if
others disagree.  On the other hand, publishing
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis in the RFC series seems to me to have
no value at all.  There should be an RFC 4677bis but it should
probably say little more than "Tao is now a web page at .... and
it is not being maintained in the RFC Series".

best,
    john

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:44:44 -0700

> It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content.  I think that is not the case.  Rather, the initial content will come from draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.

Good catch. I'll add explicit text in -02 that says that the initial text will come from the most recent proposed revision (and I will *not* put in a draft name).

> Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version in the Tao series?

No. That seems silly, given that the web page will be done before the RFC.

> 	(iii) Put the Tao aside until we are ready for another

Yuck. The slight advantage there is hugely overwhelmed by the process hassles. Instead, the first web page should have a section talking about where it came from.

> extra effort it would take,

Good. :-)

> but I can see the advantages if

That's the purpose of this document.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:17:20 -0400

--On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 13:44 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> probably say little more than "Tao is now a web page at ....
>> and it is not being maintained in the RFC Series".
> 

Paul,

Having taken a quick look at -02 in the above context, let me
make an observation and small procedural suggestion:

The information in this I-D is exactly what the title and
abstract suggest (A Good Thing), namely an explanation of the
change from RFC publication and the new procedure.  But that
sets a bit of a trap because, if the procedural model changes
--as it inevitably will over time-- the RFC will need to be
revised.

So, I suggest that, after sufficient agreement on this document
and procedure are reached, you take the bulk of this document
and simply make it an appendix to the Tao.  Since the IESG has
to approve any changes to the Tao anyway, no control is lost,
but we avoid having to obsolete 4677bis, a document whose
purpose was the get the Tao out of the RFC Series.  Then we
produce a very short and focused 4677bis for the RFC Series that
says as little more than "out of the RFC Series, 4677 is
obsolete, doc is located at stable URI ..."

    john