Subject: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:06:48 +0100

The abstract mentions 'many people',  because many people may mean 4 to 10
people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
(discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does not
mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor between
editor and members, also no announcements of such updates mentioned in
draft.

suggest> amend in abstract the word 'many' to the word  'some', or mention
like in the introduction the desire of community.

suggest> to add> to the draft that a discussion group to discuss
inputs/suggestions before the editors undertakes changes. The draft to
specify the discussion ( may be either on-List or during the IETF
meetings). I prefer to mention; the face-to-face IETF meeting discussion in
this procedure issue.

suggest> to add>  the announcement for last call of Tao changes by the
IESG,

suggest> replace in section2> line 7> The editor of the Tao decides which
proposed changes should be submitted to the IESG for the next version of
the Tao.

     replace with> The editor of the Tao decides which proposed changes
should be
                          submitted to the IESG for the next version of the
Tao after
                          the community discussed the changes.

suggest> A time period of updates to be made, and input from the community
to be collected, and editor to submit to IESG. It will be helpful also to

AB
==============

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG <[email-masked]> 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
>
> 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: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:54:27 -0400

> mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor
> between editor and members, also no announcements of such updates
> mentioned in draft.

On this, as well as on the rest of the comments in the same message:
The IETF already has a process for discussion, review, and consensus, and
this document neither changes any of it nor, I think, needs to repeat it.

Barry

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:11:50 +0200

Hi Barry,

I think from your message, you agree that discussion is important in
the decision of updates, which I share. I agree to not repeat any
unnecessary info, but if contradictions appear to procedure, it then
needs a reference or repeat.

The problem is that the I-D does not mention in the
publish-procedure-section-2 *discussion* as an important procedure
factor for submission nor even refers to what you call
process-of-discussion. I think mentioning that editor decides to
submit and accept input is a new thing that is not in the procedure
you refer to. Therefore, to be clear in the I-D it MUST clarify, is
there community consensus with editor decision, OR is their only
decision of editor.

It is clear from the draft if you read it, that the decision *is not*
for the internet-community in two issues: a) editor decision of
accepting a propose change, b) editor decision of change-updates to
submit to IESG. The discussion in the I-D is mentioned as just for
information not as decision making of submission.

Please note that this I-D informs:

1) The Tao will be published at <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html> and
<https://www.ietf.org/tao.html>. The initial content for the Tao web
page will come from the last Internet-Draft that was meant to replace
RFC 4677.

2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an
informational overview. Therefore, the proposed Tao-webpage is the
same.

Abdussalam
========================================

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:48:46 -0800

> information not as decision making of submission.

This is consistent with how individual, non-WG documents are
progressed in the IETF.  I don't see a conflict or discontinuity.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:39:44 +0200

Hi Melinda, and All,

>progressed in the IETF.  I don't see a conflict or discontinuity.

Conflict process if we consider the I-D process as a IETF process. It
is not consistent with the IETF procedures. It can be consistent if
the IESG amend the I-D submission-process or take my suggestions.

Yes I agree that non-WGs documents take different submission stream
than IETF-WGs documents. One is named non-IETF submission and the
other IETF submission streams (two only streams so far). In the I-D we
are discussing of [publishing the Tao of the IETF], the submission
stream was not refered to which of two submission streams. It is most
likely understood as a new second IETF submission stream (I may name
it IETF-Tao stream), because this I-D affect the community (it must be
a group production not an individual production).

Please note that:
1) The subject I-D obsoletes RFC4677 if approved. The RFC4677 is a
IETF WG's procedure overview.

informational overview.

The IETF procedures are only done in the IETF WGs or IETF community,
how can an individual decide for the community!!! That is why we are
discussing it in a IETF-list, not in a non-WG-list.

AB
====================

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:51:36 +0200

> the IESG amend the I-D submission-process or take my suggestions.

 I refere to the IETF process of: preparing the I-D by WG,
Community-accepting, Submitting, and IESG-approval. The new
Tao-update-process of the draft is not including the community. The
IETF process in draft is as : individual preparing, individual submit
to Editor, Editor decides and accepts, Editor submitting, and
IESG-approval.

The above are two different IETF submission streams, which may be
consistent if we include *the community* in accepting submission to
IESG.

====================

RFC4844>section 4.1.3>

4.1.3. Process Change
>From time to time, it may be necessary to change the approval
processes for any given stream, or even add or remove streams. This
may occur when the RFC Editor, the IAB, the body responsible for a
given stream of documents, or the community determines that there are
issues to be resolved in general for RFC approval or for per-stream
approval processes.
In this framework, the general approach is that the IAB will work
with the RFC Editor and other parties to get community input and it
will verify that any changes appropriately account for community
requirements.

RFC4844>section 5>
The subsections below identify the streams that exist today. There
is no immediate expectation of new streams being created and it is
preferable that new streams NOT be created. Creation of streams and
all policies surrounding general changes to the RFC Series are
discussed above in Section 4.

5.1. RFC Approval Processes
5.1.1. IETF Document Stream
5.1.2. IAB Document Stream
5.1.3. IRTF Document Stream
5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream

===========================

To understand IETF procedures of processes and document-streams I
refer you to sections 4 and 5 in [RFC4844], and section 4 in [RFC5378]
, may read also RFC5741, RFC5742, and FC2418.

However, if you still don't understand my language or if I
misunderstood, please advise/comment :)

Regards
AB

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 6/19/12, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> between

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:39:56 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>consistent if we include *the community* in accepting submission to

RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the 
various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for 
IETF Documents.  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be 
published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the 
editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be 
discussed on an open, Tao-specific mailing list.  The second 
paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear about 
changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG 
accepts proposed changes.  Are you suggesting that the changes should 
be discussed in a Working Group or something else?

BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:25:30 -0700

On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:39 AM, SM wrote:

> RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for IETF Documents.  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor. Remember, I was the third editor of the document.

> draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be discussed on an open, Tao-specific mailing list.  The second paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear about changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG accepts proposed changes.  

Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

> BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for specifications, not descriptive documents like the Tao.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:02:08 -0700

Hi Paul,
At 09:25 20-06-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many 
>individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor. 
>Remember, I was the third editor of the document.

Yes. :-)

>Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to 
>be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

I would not put too many administrative details in a RFC as it will 
be read literally.  Here's  some suggested text which I'll leave to 
author discretion:

    The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
    The changes can be discussed on the [email-masked] mailing list.
    The editor submits the revised version of the Tao to the IESG for approval.
    The revised version is published by the IETF Secretariat at
    <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

What was not clear is the how changes make it into the 
document.  Instead of using two steps, you could keep the URL above 
as the stable one and use your discretion for the editing part.  I 
removed the tao-possible-revision.html as "we" do not want to see a 
RFP where the IETF gets billed for such work. :-)   The editor can 
work out some details such as automatically picking changes from SVN 
and pushing it to some work-in-progress web page with the IETF 
Secretariat.  I did not mention "community" in the above.  Feel free 
to add that.  There is some overhead in the above.  As people will 
probably get bored after a while, it should be less work.

>Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to 
>Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as 
>well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for 
>specifications, not descriptive documents like the Tao.

RFC 2026 is the alternate reality of the IETF.  It's convenient to 
cite it every now and then.  If the IESG asks, you could tell it that 
the information in FYI 17 is simply and obviously obsolete and fits 
its published "statement" for Historic.  I take it that nobody would 
refer anyone to RFC 4677 except for historical reasons.

I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:16:59 +0200

Hi SM,

I thank you for your comments and input,

The I-D being discussed (draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02), does
mention the discussion on a list, but it does not mention the
community or consensus. The point of this I-D is to make the process
easier and valuable for users and memebrs, so I don't suggest to make
such discussion on the list mandatory for this webpage process.

> IETF Documents.

Please note that the milestone/aim of the I-D and the webpage is to
produce a RFC in the end of its progress. I think the webpage is a
IETF document published and edited differently than IETF-drafts. So
RFC4844 should be considered. Furthermore the I-D avoids to reference
or mention IETF procedure documents (mentions obslete documents), I
don't know why?

>  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be

The problem is not choosing editor, but the webpage process. The Tao
webpage is a document but the question was is this document an IETF
document or a non-IETF document. Under the procedure IETF-documents
have a process. The <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02> draft has a
different process even though it is an IETF-document. The draft if
approved will Obsletes RFC4677 (this document went through IETF
process, and will be replaced by webpage with different process) so
the only reference is the webpage and its progress is through new
stream of Tao-process.

>  Are you suggesting that the changes should

I suggested the below message:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73750.html

I think that discussions should be limited times (in hours or few
days) which I prefer to take place in the IETF meetings and getting a
community consesus on the updates of the webpage. Because if we have
all individual-submissions with discussions and consensus of working
group then it will be disaster not making things easier. That is why I
suggest Editor acceptance with community consesus, and limited
discussions to solve the purpose of this I-D.

> BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

I agree with this suggestions.

Regards,
AB

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:34:53 +0200

Hi All

Discussing the draft <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02>

>Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

-Why the document/draft does not mention/reference other descriptive
related works?

-Why the document/draft obsoletes RFC4677, is there a big reason?

-Why is the document/draft not clear of its aim, objectives,
sub-process-periods, and update-announcement-procedure?

In the introduction>
[This document contains the procedure agreed to by the IESG. The Tao
has traditionally been an IETF consensus document,..]
-Why the document/draft in section 2 does not mention consesus while
mentioned in introduction.

-Why the document/draft does not include section about the Tao-list
and this discussion method and purposes.

-Why the document/draft has one section after the introduction,
avoiding important sections like in RFC2418 (WG procedures) or as:
       a) Roles of Tao-webpage update.
       b) Roles of Individual submission to Editor.
       c) The community input to the webpage.
       d) What is the Editor criteria of accepting and refusing such updates.

>Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for specificati…

Yes the early versions were obsoleted by a new RFC, not obsoleted by
RFC-that-references-webpage. I am not against the webpage, but against
to obsolete RFC4677. There should be a way to make one Tao RFC alive
while having the webpage. Maybe this I-D can update RFC4677 to add the
possibility of both RFC and webpage.

>I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.

I agree and want the *consesus* and *community* input to be clear in the draft

I hope my message language is good/ok to understand, if not please
advise and I will send another clarification,

Regards
AB
==================================================

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:02:57 -0800

On 6/21/12 1:16 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> community consesus on the updates of the webpage.

Hi: if you're concerned about and familiar with community process
then surely you're aware that work is progressed and decisions made
on mailing lists - right?

Melinda

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:08:40 -0400

This URL <http://www.ietf.org/tao> will bring up the current document.  It works exactly the same as <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

This means that <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive> cannot be used as suggested on this thread.

I propose the following URLs for the Tao:

   - current Tao: <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>

   - draft Tao: <http://www.ietf.org/tao-possible-revision.html>

   - archive entries: <http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/tao-YYYYMMDD.html>

Russ

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:50:01 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>-Why is the document/draft not clear of its aim, objectives,

Paul Hoffman actually asked what was not clear to me.  It does not 
mean that the draft is not clear.

>I agree and want the *consesus* and *community* input to be clear in the draft

The last comment in the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73779.html meant 
that I neither support nor oppose publication.  I was interested in 
seeing your arguments about the draft.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:12:31 +0200

Hi Russ,

I agree with the proposal totally, but my confusions are: a) if we are
having the current document RFC4677 on the Tao-web, could we not
obsolete the RFC4677 until we get a final updated agreed RFC other
than the submitted I-D, Or the first web-document approved to obsolete
the RFC4677.
b) If we are making a new IETF web-document process, could we have the
I-D submited to include how the community will decide and how the
editor will decide.

sorry for any disturb,

Abdussalam
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: IETF <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:08:40 -0400

This URL <http://www.ietf.org/tao> will bring up the current document.
 It works exactly the same as <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

This means that <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive> cannot be used as
suggested on this thread.

Russ

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:21:55 +0200

Propose to include in the I-D <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt>
an IETF-WG that is created in the IETF General Area to discuss Tao
document/webpage issues,

AB
===

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:23:29 -0400

Has the IETF morphed into a conference/convention?

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/bits-n-bites.html

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:40:34 -0400

There was a long discussion about this event prior to it being scheduled.  Sorry you missed that discussion.

We will have a discussion after the event to determine if we should do it again.

Russ